Dialogue of Cultures XXI

“Once you've been being engaged in philosophy, you feel like having been poured over with slops”, Lev Shestov commented that occurrence with Socrates, if you remember, when Xanthippe sluiced him from the bucket (it seems he was out from home for a long time). It's pity, sometimes you feel yourself like that without any philosophy. And at such a strange place for it. Paris, Haute Couture Week, Dior. Soviet women had a secret fantasy, articulated in a saying “to see Paris and to die”. Such a longing for something fatally-dangerously-beautiful, which appeared out of nowhere for they were dying not having seeing Paris. And there also was an old English film about a lady, who was dreaming about a Dior dress her entire life, and who fulfilled her dream in her later years, having made an audacious trip to Paris. In the story with John Galliano it seems someone has mocked the dream-space, having shifted this nice craziness with all these eroto-thanatic fantasies (fr-fantaisie), to the space of actual delirium filled with threatening phantasms (fr-fantasmes).

After all, I will try here “to be engaged with philosophy” on the margins of the story, which, I believe, starts not in a bar, where odd video with John Galliano was shot, and not in the night from February 24 to 25 when the designer had a tiff with a couple that accused him of racial and anti-Semitic expressions. To confirm this intuition we need to break through a layer of self-evidences, stereotypes distorting perception of the reality. And if “beyond” there will be nothing except delirium, this won’t make it worse. For now it is impossible to breathe or to think here, and it is desire to change this state.

I am going to give below the well-known chronology, but we should remind that John Galliano will face a trial after the quarrel in café “La Perle” with Philippe Virgitti and Geraldinee Bloch. But he doesn’t face a trial regarding the video spread over the web, in which shocking phrases about love to Hitler and gas chambers sound. However, the video became the very reason for firing from Dior and for further movement into a downward spiral in the designer’s life.

Everything seems to be simple and self-evident, particularly clearly pronounced and heard by everyone in the world words. At the same time it doesn’t stop for 3 months and sometimes intensifies the shock. In the course of events a man is firstly separated from his work and works – then from his name – then from his own face. Well, and here are these feelings – mine and of other people – I will take them as a source of information in my “non-journalistic investigation” on “what does all that mean”? (Because in order to save the some minimum of human’s health it is needed that a defining was sometimes connected to its defined). And there is some information in open sources, I cannot check it but I can treat it as utterances referring to the matter in any case.

On comments in this story. For me it's inconvenient to creep in here, it's true. Because all this evokes feelings of unprecedented breaking in personal space. Such violation of boundaries can cause a great anxiety by itself, can’t it? If it can be done to one person, particularly one who reached certain positions in society, the idea of everyone’s helplessness and defencelessness appears. And we observe how comments multiply as defences from the growing anxiety. Crushing and revelatory comments, intolerable to any form of intolerance.

Alas, comments of many deeply respected by me intellectuals didn’t put in doubt the authenticity of Galliano’s expressions and anti-Semitism although for other reasons. Anti-Semitism in many European countries reaches over-the-top percentage, anti-Israel expressions are a norm in enlightened Western society. Alan Dershowitz wrote an article, where he tied utterances of drunk artists with legitimization anti-Semitism gets in discourse of politicians and public figures. Anti-Semitism is an issue which I have painfully endured since my childhood. I agree with everything in that article, except the determined connection. When I actually faced this story I thought – what would Alan Dershowitz say on it? However, if we take case of Galliano as is, without generalization, and deliberate what is happening, we will discover far deeper sources of Anti-Semitism than the discourse of politicians. I will investigate it further.

There are comments of the people who know John Galliano rather long and close so that the “evident” picture of events is unimaginable for them. Despite the fact that these are famous and respectable people, their voices of support are covered by the ghoul of public opinion, which lets the regressive course of events take place.

And you had luck – you don’t read the first version of the text, full of poorly controlled affects, you could be drown in.

Because of all these and, of course, because of further tricks of John Galliano’s fortune, the situation seems to be unconventional. Even I. Mizrahi that this is too much . I would like to know, Mr. John Galliano, how is it possible to get into this crossing point of so many painful issues and hypertrophied feelings, which don’t let go the witnesses-participants of this story. What has happened in it?

On Tuesday, March 1, Dior announces final firing of the creative director. For a particularly heinous ("particulièrement odieux") behavior, is stated in press-release. Everything happens on the eve of Paris Haute Couture Week. On March 4 demonstration of collection Haute Couture, created by Galliano for Dior House, is scheduled. The creator does not attend the demonstration, Sydney Toledano (the director of the House) appears on the podium at the end instead of Galliano, he shortly explains everything without giving the name of the designer. A lot of people in white gowns take the stage.

On March 6 the new collection for the House “John Galliano” presented without John Galliano. These news are the hit at the Paris Haute Couture Week. Women are weeping, everyone experiences shock and many mourning feelings. Dior shops are assaulted by the fans of talented master, they buy out his last things. At the same time demostrations which call to boycott Galliano take place in Paris.

Stormy discussions inflame in the press, many hold up to shame the yesterday's idol, someone calls Galliano “tragedy-man”. Information about his problems with alcoholism and lingering depression appears. Those who support him — close people from fashion industry — assert he can’t be a racist, they talk about personal demons, attributable to artists and Galliano in particular. And also — how blood freezes from this story (Jean-Paul Gaultier). After short period a series of New-York, Canadian and other supermarket networks refuse to sell “John Galliano” products.

True, a month later I read an article in a German magazine, that sales of Galliano brand considerably increased. On the next day I read that John Galliano is dismissed from the House “John Galliano” according to the decision of the Dior Board of Directors, Dior owns 91 % of the House “John Galliano”.

John Galliano faces a trial. According to his lawyer Stephane Zerbib’s statement, the video won’t appear in the case, but two submitted complaints will be dealt with. Stephane Zerbib doesn’t consider the defendant as being anti-Semite and guilty in the incidents.

Shortly before May 12 when the court had to set a date to begin hearing of the case, information appears that Mr. Galliano dismisses Stephane Zerbib because after having looked into his finances he discovered disappearance of 4 million dollars that were transferred to his lawyer’s accounts. John Galliano files lawsuite against his former lawyer, and Stephane Zerbib — against his former client with accusation of defamation.

Hearing of the case on accusation of anti-Semitism is scheduled on June 22.

Recently I have found a photo widespread over the Internet signed as “John Galliano”. There is a man on it, who is dressed like Galliano and obviously depicts Galliano at the Cannes Festival at the charitable fashion party. I don’t know, maybe, someone wishing to mark absence-presence of couturier, has dressed up like that out of best intentions, but I experienced a horror.

Firstly they take his works and work, then — his business and name, then — his face and identity. Whose are those nice jokes and what does all that mean? Is this a game of hunting down or can the game of unconscious reveal itself like that, immensely activated in the event, which occurred with one man?

Clarifying questions and comments:

1.Regarding the quarrel of February, 24, we have two stories. One of them was told by Galliano and presented in Daily Telegraph , maybe, elsewhere . The second story told by Geraldine Bloch and her companion Philippe Virgitti, was presented everywhere. Despite all confrontations each party stood its ground. Later the information came out that Philippe Virgitti, having acquainted himself with Galliano’s creative work, became convinced that he could not be a racist. Nevertheless, he keeps asserting that some anti-Semitic and racist statements were present.

2.The promptitude, with which the second claim was submitted is admirable. The supposed victim was, on one hand, deeply shocked by Galliano’s behaviour, and on the other hand, was lingering doubts since October 2010. One can easily imagine that the scandal which erupted enabled her to process her indignation and increased her determination to go to police; yet it is not likely that this internal transformation could happen just in one day. No video was mentioned at that time.

3.These filmed events took place in December 2010. The video appeared at the same time when the second claim was suddenly submitted. Its coming out was just late because French sites did not want to publish it. First, the cameraman who filmed this masterpiece had to hold back his artistic pride and delay appearance of his creation by 2 months. Secondly, it still appeared in the world simultaneously with the second claim. If people carry something exciting – either in their heart or in their phone – for that long time, how can the fact be explained that they get their wish to share exactly at the same moment? Philippe Checinski, one of the creators of the site through which the video was distributed around the world, says that contributers hit the jackpot, as they receive significant percentage from sales. But why, why didn’t they do that in December? Christmas, New Year are coming… Don’t they like to make presents? Besides, did this money compensate the author’s credit refusal, since we still don’t know the name of the producer-director-cameraman? There is a movie “Wag the Dog” where Dustin Hoffman played a movie director; this character preferred death to obscurity which cannot be counterbalanced by any honorarium…

4.Mr. Galliano published a message with apologies (see the link to Daily Telegraph above). He makes apologies for his behavior “in the worst possible light”, but he denies anti-Semitism and all other charges against him. Further, he states: “I have fought my entire life against prejudice, intolerance and discrimination having been subjected to it myself.” It's true. But severe and unyielding the French public is: out of 12,952 respondents who answered the question “are John Galliano’s apologies sufficient?” 69% said definitely “no” (Europe 1). The head of ADL (Anti-defamation League, which counteracts anti-Semitism all over the world) Abraham Foxman is more inclined to trust people – he accepted the designer’s apologies, hoping that the latter would make a contribution into the struggle against prejudice and intolerance.

5.Comments made at that time regarding the position of Dior (and LVMH, which includes Dior as one section in the enormous supermarket of luxury) were very different. From the opinion that such a promptness in firing Galliano should be understood as an instance of professionalism (in what domain?) to the confession of Mr.Armani that he is “alarmed by LVMH decision: after all, can we demand model behaviour from such an eccentric character, from the designer with volcanic eruptive fantasy whose entrance onto the podium is in the Marie-Antoinette style gowns?” The position of LVMH/Dior in this story is highly ambivalent, especially from this viewpoint: what part they took in these events. Besides, nobody in Dior ever concealed that Galliano is not only a great artist, but also a businessman. So Dior fired not only the artist, but a person who offered many brilliant business strategies and increased the number of Dior shops from 10 to 220 all over the world!

6.As to people in white smocks, for me, associations caused by this image span from flat joke about new “new look” by Dior to thrilling recollections from the time when I was taking my practicals in the mental hospital in Kiev and was wearing a white smock too.

7.What does this story with lawyers mean?

8.Which way strange photographs with erroneous inscriptions come to the media?

9.In this connection, we can see rather interesting twist in the theme of anti-Semitism, as certain aspects of current events allow us, in my view, to better comprehend the underside of this phenomenon.

The little genre research

Of course, in order to feel comforted and to finalise somehow the picture that we see, we should determine its genre. Therefore, we propose to try a few crime fiction styles and definitely an ancient Greek tragedy on current events.

Crime fiction: for instance, Edgar Poe and a horrible murders in the rue Morgue where, as you remember, eventually an ape was found guilty. In our case it can symbolize some uncontrollable, wild and primordial element, which was released in this story.

Chesterton, it crossed my mind, “Where can you hide a leaf? – In the forest. – And if there is no forest? – Then you have to plant it.” This is an inexact quotation from one story about Pater Brown. However, it described terrible occurrence: the great battle was incited where 2 armies lay dead, for the purpose of hiding the body of one man who was killed for personal reasons. In our case, this pattern is quite fitting: to hide in the major anti-Semitic scandal a smaller one and not that obvious in terms of finding a negative character.

Tragedy, after Aristotle, has as its starting point not characters, but the composition of the events that appears as the main motion power, which casts proper characters. The best fitting in the role of tragic character is a human, who is neither righteous, nor virtuous, “and gets into trouble not because he is vile or immoral, but because of some mistake (hamartia), after being in glory and luck, like Oedipus, Thyestes and other prominent men of the kin” (“Poetics” 1453a).

Our genre preference here depends on our, for ourselves, answer to the question: was the forest of anti-Semitic scandal planted, or it was just a suitable opportunity, or maybe it was tragically emerging reality that grasped one proper person.

OK, I’ll put it this way: if I knew any details which would allow me to comprehend the incident as a deep drama, as a conflict that happened between two (or more) persons, whose unconscious was in coupling for a long time, it would match my sensing of these events. Moreover, they had to get involved in this drama with all their being, entailing such a portion of reality, which had to burst long time ago, and it finally had.

Was Galliano paid his severance pay?

Yes, Mr. Armani, LVMH’s decision frightens me too, and here is the reason. Having wrote the flat joke about the “new look” and white smocks, I remembered, as I said, about my practicals in mental hospital. In the Russian there is an obsolete name for such institutions: “house of sorrow”, and it is very close to the feelings that I experienced there. Once they bring in a youth about 19 years old. Some primary manifestation, the speech, with which it is possible to work in the semantic field; but in this hospital there was hardly a person, who will do that. While he is being checked in, he undergoes certain sanitary procedures, and things that are considered dangerous are being taken from him. Actually, all these are just trifles that he wears: chains, cross, some baubles… What makes him a symbolic creature, full of meanings and relationships, all that is now taken away from him, making of him just a body, deprived of individual senses. The most sorrowful sight on earth. Galliano case evokes similar feelings. Amazingly, this happens in the domain which is expected to do things to the contrary: provide a human with possibility to express and create his/her personal meanings…

And of course, alarming is the real involvement of the Fashion House Dior in all this.

What is this involvement? First, we believe that things would have gone different unless Dior has declared loudly their stance, when “they suddenly refused to know John” (comment by Patricia Field in the interview to WWD). Secondly, there is a previous history of relationships, where serious conflict has been developing for a long time within one working environment. Such conflict can be resolved by different ways, including lawful termination of cooperation. However, Dior-LVMH follows another, passion way (passion – pathos – is an integral part of the tragedy, according to Aristotle), persecuting their former art-director both in business sphere (nothing personal) and in emotional sphere. “Pathos is an action, which causes destruction or pain, for instance, death on the scene, agony, injuries etc.” Well, if someone is fired from the company created by himself and named after him, it is difficult to construe just as business.

Recently, an article was published in “Le Parisien” about the memo which was issued by the head of Dior Group in December 2010. It deals with the problems of alcoholism and undisciplined behavior of Mr. Galliano, and someone in Dior experience them as catastrophe: “It becomes unbearable and uncontrollable for the team that works with him… The stakes, both human and financial are too high”, it reads. Dior refused to comment. This was in December, and at the beginning of January Mr. Arnault, the major share-holder of Dior and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of LVMH, gave an interview, in which he declared that he never regretted about common work with Galliano, and praised the latter’s plus points, noting not only artistic, but also his business abilities. It's clear after those words that the break off is upcoming. Moreover, other sources gave other reasons for break off: “Galliano is outdated”, and Asian markets after the crisis require different approach than that which Mr. Galliano can provide. I think that is rubbish, but it shows that dismissal was not too sudden, and rumours circulated taking as a basis different speculations.

So, it means that this prompt dismissal has as its grounds neither professionalism nor principal position, but its own little (though who knows?) yet very painful conflicts. I read that similarly scandalous was dismissal of Galliano’s predecessor Ferre, but given the lack of media, the situation was known only to those who worked in or was related to the fashion industry. Besides, through the enthusiastic descriptions of the internal atmosphere and wonderful organization of the LVMH Group, which are usually given by the directors and top managers of the company, some other information leaked. For example, that the trips which Galliano arranged for development of his collections (he had to discover other cultures, right?) from the very beginning annoyed those people in Dior who preferred to see the artist sitting quietly in his office. And the excited tone of interviews, where especially highlighted were the discreet nature of Mr. Arnault and his ability to understand artists with whom he works, proves existence of special attitude in the group. Summarizing the impression produced by these interviews and articles, I should say that mr. Arnault turned into the group’s divinity called to liberate other members of the group from the feelings of anxiety and guilt, as W. Bion would say, and from encountering such uncontrollable phenomena as artists’ creation. Actually, artists cannot normally exist here for a long time. We do not know personal circumstances of Mr.Galliano, but the group environment, to put it mildly, does not help to overcome addictions and depressions; on the contrary, it can pretty well promote their development. In this environment any attacks on the group’s divinity (even on his own part) can be perceived as a blasphemy and a great threat. Or “ heinous behaviour”, as it was put in press release by Dior, for which Galliano was fired. “The stakes, both human and financial are too high”.

I should say that Mr. Arnault, though he himself created this space (perhaps he needed it for something), must feel very lonely in it. While with Mr. Galliano another type of relationships began to build. But unfortunately, one more feature of this space is inadmissibility of any conflict and psychological competition. Here you cannot avoid making a choice, cannot keep both. So, Mr. Arnault makes his choice… Like that: « – How do you think LVMH handled John Galliano? (the question in the interview with Mark Weber, nowadays one of the top managers of LVMH) – Perfectly. Mr. Arnault once said at an event that doing the right thing is often very painful, but you still have to do it.»

But are you sure, Mr. Arnault, that you had choice in this situation? If you made different decision, you would have to change a lot in this environment. And yet – we do not know whether Mr. Galliano is responsive enough to understand what he meant for you?

Frankly speaking, it is difficult for me now to switch to the next topic connected with the scandal, i.e. use of anti-Semitism.

I am switching.

I would like to know what Alan Dershowitz thinks about it

Thus, intentionally or not, but the event with anti-Semitic issue is used for Mr. Galliano’s dismissal from Dior. Why antisemitism is called to solve some personal collapse (or if someone likes it more – the problem with Asian markets), which took place with Mr. Galliano and his employers? We know here nothing except the story which happened with Vuittons and Mr. Arno in late 80s after a taking over of LVMH. It turns out that “the story of unique in terms of amorality LVMH acquisition hadn't leaved pages of the national press for several years”. (The article I quote is here)

No less scandalous became its continuation, which caused antagonism between Henri Racamier, the representative of Vuitton family, who was in fact let down by Bernard Arno. But Vuittons still stayed at the company and here we read further that Mr. Arno directly uses issue of antisemitism. It is not about gathered damaging information or about appropriate occasion but about fabricated evidence against Vuitons family — what is called “leak” to the press — as if during occupation Vuittons dismissed all Jews from their plants. Then in the press appears a spurious letter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, “The people's front” leader, whose name was associated with anti-Semitism, also addressed to Vuittons. The latter bring the case before the court, which disavows all these fakes. However, Vuittons were labeled anti-Semites by public opinion that made it possible for LVMH to get rid of them without any problems — one after another.

This was one of the insights I got while writing the article: there is no any Vuitton in “Louis Vuitton!” — welcome to the 21st century, girl. Thus, despite all the judgments the scandal with antisemitism played cruelly against Vuittons. In our case, apropos, we can have the same effect. Even if the upcoming trial will acquit Galliano the public opinion based not on the case materials but rather on that video (we will look into it later) and other “self-evidences,” can legitimize that state in which John Galliano found himself today — they took from him everything.

Does this situation repeats itself or this is just a “coincidence” that exactly this issue came up — it isn’t that important. It is important that the subject is being used directly or indirectly. This causes the devaluation of the concept. Here Natan Sharansky defines one of the ways which chooses anti-Semitism today — this is devaluation. Not the denial of Holocaust but devaluation, relativism regarding the death of millions of Jews. And in our case we have devaluation of anti-Semitism and even more.

I see an essential problem in the fact that here the concept is not only devalued but is getting connected to very questionable in ethic terms situations. A distorted relation develops and draws into the field of anti-Semitic connotation those events, which have no relation to it but are negative and dubious stories. Galliano’s dismissal, Vuittons… These stories concentrate unsolvable and very painful experiences, non-symbolized affects projected-in and acted-out within these events. All this starts to relay to anti-Semitism as if the multitude of destructive fantasies collected in the course of centuries is not enough. They say sometimes about irrational anti-Semitism. Look, this irrationality is happening right here, right now, right in front of our eyes. When I was writing this article, I asked my colleagues for a supervision on the subject (it is such an instrument in psychotherapy when a group of colleagues are expressing their impressions and fantasies). One of the colleagues, while we were discussing the reasons why everyone fell on Galliano (and not on politicians, who deliver obviously anti-Semitic speeches), remembered an occasion from her childhood. Their neighbors on the second floor of the house they lived in were a Jewish family. My colleague and her sister were friends with a Jewish girl of their age. Once the fathers of the families got into a quarrel because of some mundane reason. After that my colleague’s father started calling their neighbors “Yit” (youpin ― fr.) and forbade their daughters to be friends with the neighbor. But they were friends. And this feeling that you are friends, and this is forbidden, it was a terrible experience, which hasn’t disappeared from the mental reality of children when they grew up. However, my colleague has tools to realize some of her unconscious things — individual analysis and so on, but this is not so for other people. Too many accumulated painful feelings like that, that weren’t realized, that were driven in hiding of subconsciousness, are becoming an affective lining for anti-Semitism. And when under the guise of fighting against anti-Semitism one person is being after, and public opinion is drawn together against him, this tells us two things: 1) I am sure that in life of each person there is such an episode which is connected to anti-Semitism and painful feelings. This story with Galliano is a good way to take out all this unconscious painful. 2) It seems that anti-Semitism which lasts for ages always needs “fresh blood” using up-to-date subjects for it. Today it is tolerance and fighting against anti-Semitism. And always such stories, filled with feelings of helplessness and injustice, start to develop affects for the lining of “collective unconscious” anew. The third thing that I will tell you about later refers to the situation of Galliano himself. It appeared over the WWW / Internet and manifested some foreclosed senses to the world.

There is a side question in this subject: Can we treat the use of anti-Semitism (especially in the story with Vuittons, where just false documents appear) as anti-Semitism — in legal terms?

And there is another noteworthy thing there. Comments on sites of the Israeli Right regarding Galliano were much more balanced than those on European ones. Of course, there were different ones, but. . . The same as with the materials covering these events. One Israeli title reads: “Galliano said Good-bye to Dior. Inquisition of political correctness won” . . . Because Jews are not interested in turning issue of anti-Semitism into inquisition of political correctness. Because they feel on themselves real and quite aggressive manifestations of anti-Semitism from all directions in this world. Beginning with the call of Hamas to wipe Israel off from the face of the earth and to throw Jews into the sea, ending with European and American structures to present money to Palestinian Autonomy which get actually used to support that very Hamas and other useful things — publishing textbooks, in which Israel is not presented on the map and in which suicide bombers exploding on Israeli streets are glorified. For summer camps in which children since they are three years old learn the basics of anti-Semitism and terror activities in technical detail. For creation of tv shows for children, in which hare Assud tells children about Jihad — if it hasn’t bravely died yet in the battle against Zionism in front of its young audience eyes as his predecessor — Farfur (Mikey-mouse) and Dabur Nahri (a plush bee).

Alan Dershowitz knows all that as well as many other things, but European taxpayers, who directly (via elections) or indirectly (by taxes) participate in all that, for some reasons don’t know, or don’t want to know, but some of them in their free time outpour intolerance for anti-Semitism and racism of John Galliano in their comments.

I am afraid to seem a sickener, but I can’t but mention that one of the reasons to inflate anti-Semitic scandal around John Galliano is to step aside from real outrageous anti-Semitism of today and from real responsibility which everyone bears in this matter.

Why Galliano?

Because he is an artist and an artist has contact with the present. Not everyone likes it because very painful spots happen at present, while poets and artists make us feel them.

How do they do it we can deliberate right here and right now. A video with a statement “I love Hitler, etc.” is out there. Let us look how particularly it is. I will consider two types of versions — more earthly and more fantastic. (Fantasy is not what stands in contrary to the reality but what fills it in).

More earthly versions are connected with all questions and bewilderment regarding timely surfacing of the video and the whole story to happen at a particular moment. Can it be so that everything we see in the video is a staged scene? What was the previous phrase? Who stored the file before the Haute Couture Week in Paris? There are a lot of questions there, but there isn't one among them: “Does Galliano really love Hitler?” Something tells me that he doesn’t.

The video looks truly shocking. But it has to look like that. The aim of all this tirade is to shock. We see how easily Mr. Galliano’s interlocutors draw him into the discussion and how he makes unsuccessful attempts to leave it. The telephone glides up right before the “key phrase”. Obviously it was turned on while lying on the table. Maybe it was used a moment before or maybe, it was waiting for an appropriate moment for shooting.

Under very doubtful circumstances a man who obviously wants to stay alone is drawn into a discussion, in which he doesn’t want to participate. And he attempts to break away by offering the most discouraging, from his point of view, tirade about love to Hitler and gas chambers. He speaks out (or it speaks out itself) the most absurd and terrifying, from his point of view, something that could scary away from him those who haunt him in this cozy Parisian café, obviously scoffing at him. Everything is simple. But it is not easy to perceive the reality that is breaking through here.

For many people this video overlapped with the incident that took place in the evening on February 24, witnesses of which we were not. Maybe, it really throws light somehow on the meeting with Geraldine Bloch and Philippe Virgity. In the statements of a supposed February victim — as they are given in open sources — everything looks so that Mr. Galliano enters the café, takes a neighboring table and performs unmotivated aggression, insulting her and then her friend. But what we see in the video tells us that Mr. Galliano while being drunk strives to shrink into himself. And it doesn’t matter for him what is going on at the neighboring table. At the same time you can easily pull him by the tongue especially if you are talking in a mocking tone and appeal to his appearance, he can give in reply something awful in order to make you to leave him alone. Geraldine Bloch says “a strange dude sits down”… At which moment you defined him as strange, Geraldine? When he was sitting down or when he was ordering mojito? Did you let him somehow know about his “strangeness” and how? Think what you like, but Mr. Galliano’s version at least about the beginning of the quarrel looks more credible. I don’t know what else could be said there, but…

All that could be understood. For no one accuses Mr. Galliano of intentions to kill Philippe Virgity, although according to the statements of the latter, the last phrase addressed him was “fucking Asian bastard, I will kill you”. Galliano is going to be tried and public opinion turns against him because his speech testifies not of his anti-Semitism but on the contrary, of deep and painful rootedness in the subject of experiencing the tragedy of Holocaust. Galliano brought up on the surface for us everything perceived by him to be the most terrifying thing, one that probably torments him most of all. This is gas chambers, Hitler, who symbolizes deadly deprivation, which is being experienced till now, and racism, ugliness, otherness that can become the basis for pursuing and even extermination. In contradistinction to politicians, whose anti-Semitic statements are just ignored because they have merely instrumental nature and are intended for solely political purposes… and such things get accepted. Somehow.

Galliano met with an accident, which was described by Lacan and which provides for the breakthrough of the non-symbolized reality. Or a mistake (hamartia), which produces the best tragedy, according to Aristotle. The latter emphasized by this term the fact that the tragic hero did not deserve his guilt. Later explanations shift towards some real, although tragic, guilt. This relieved the tension of the perfect tragedy Aristotle had looked after. It based on a situation where the hero suddenly takes on responsibility for the crime committed not by him, for knot of fate tide up not by him (Bibler). Well, I just mean that if Galliano were really guilty, it would be easier to forgive him, and things wouldn’t be perceived so catastrophically acutely.

What is breaking through here as such rejected reality and crime committed not by Galliano, but evidenced by him this way, is reality of Holocaust. Not in its physical time, but now, when it constitutes the psychic reality of a person (in this case European). Anti-Semitism implemented in Holocaust and death, not grieved over and not lived through, therefore always threatening, they are the reality. It is clear that no one wants to deal with it, and the European civilization is trying to distance itself from it, choosing not the best means for defences.

What I mean speaking of the reality of Holocaust? For example, a man in whose family a couple generations conceal the truth about their ancestors’ death in Auschwitz and who thinks of himself, in his conscious life, not involved in the theme of Holocaust, he feels attacks of asphyxia in certain situations. But in the course of analysis this man hits upon images underlying these attacks, which images are gradually shaping as silhouettes of men in military uniform cramming people into the asphyxiating room… Not-knowledge that the family tried to arrange to protect children against this painful truth, cannot secure against knowledge which is given in experience and senses. All this is actually enclosed in our body, in our physical and emotional body, in the bodies of the victims’ children and of the children of those who were on the other side of the barbed-wire. And one day the body has to let this truth out, trying to treat it on the different level of symbolization, in speech. Of course, nobody is ready for this. It is quite clear, and it is evidenced by the hysterics around Galliano, because too many elements of the events and relationships developing around him remind the collective mechanisms that worked for the tragedy.

It helps to discover correlation between the everyday anti-Semitism which everyone meets, this or that way, in his life (or you are not the inhabitant of this planet) and all the crimes of the Nazis. For instance, when we discussed the situation at the supervision my husband, 11 relatives of whom died in Babi Yar, remembered a scene from the movie “Ladies’ Tailor” by Leonid Gorowetz. It is about a Jewish family in Kiev who spend night thinking whether they should go to Babi Yar where the German commandant's office ordered all Jews to appear in the morning. Officially, they think they will be taken to Palestine, and unofficially, they have doubts, since the rumors of the massacre of Jews are circulating in the air. The phrase which makes them yet go and believe that they will be taken to Palestine, not shot on spot, was this: “You just hear here, “Yit”, “Yit”…

Has it anything to do with Galliano (except for the title of the film)? It appears that there is Holocaust official and unofficial.

There is Holocaust which has changed the world history, having put absolutely distinct bounds to manifestations of any kind of intolerance. While there is Holocaust which is the challenge to the collective memory, which can display itself in many ways: through the scandal around the book about anti-Jewish pogroms after (!) the war. Or through the utterance of the drunk artist, who (people say) is proud of his Jewish roots and who, in his difficult moment swears by gas chambers in the bar.

This is quite natural, as it seems that his personal peripeteia strongly overlay the unconscious fears which live after Holocaust: it is the threat of destruction of identity (not only life) and depersonalization, an encroachment upon human ability to exercise internal freedom, to have intimate relationships with God, with the world and with oneself without being persecuted for this. (By the way, the Jews are still being persecuted for this.) So, the attack on “sacred cows” of the society is just one natural stance of an individuality protesting against such absorption. It is not the vulgar form of expressing non-conformism that causes the righteous indignation in public, but the attacks themselves are felt as very dangerous. Because – look, the story of “La Ricotta” by Pasolini in the film RoGoPaG: it became the reason for the accusation of blasphemy! In catholic Italy one man has very personal attitude towards Christ. Because of that he makes attacks on the traditional, packed ideas (altar figures) which deprive of life the story he relays to so anxiously. And he is condemned for this. In modern France, this place of the catholic church seems to be occupied by the idea of the universal civil tolerance, and here you are, all of a sudden Galliano touched this theme! They would forgave the vulgar form of expression long ago, I am sure, but the reality itself remains not forgiven.

Telephones and Flowers

And so?

Every time I tried to understand the place of Galliano in this story (the one written here) two images of him arose. One tended to dissolve and get depersonalized in the landslide of all these senses and events. The other one – with every “blow of fate” – reminded words of Galliano himself (in some interview) that he was not afraid to get in a situation where he would have to sleep on the street because he will be closer to the moon from there.

And I hope so - not that he would sleep on the street, but that imagination thrilling ability and desire to be so close to the moon wouldn't break due to all these strange problems.

I also think about the legend cited by Lev Shestov in his work "In Job's Balances":

«Angel of Death who flies down to a man to separate his soul from his body is all covered with eyes. Why is this? Why it took so much angel eyes – for him, who saw everything in heaven and who has nothing to look at on earth?

And I think he has these eyes not for himself. It happens sometimes that the Angel of Death appearing after the soul, comes to know he came too soon, that term for the man to vacate the earth has not come yet. He does not touch his soul, does not even appear to it, but before retiring, quietly leaves the person two more eyes out of innumerable own eyes.

And then the man suddenly begins to see beyond what is visible to all and that he sees by his old eyes, something completely new. And he sees the new in a new way, seen as not by human but beings of "the other worlds" /.../ Former natural "like all have" eyes testify to this "new" directly to the contrary to what the eyes the angel left see. And as the rest of the senses and even mind itself are concerted with our ordinary vision, and all, personal and collective, human "experience" is also consistent with normal vision, then the new vision seems to be illegal, absurd, fantastic, just ghosts or hallucinations of disordered imagination”.

What do you think, can such a discrepancy, or perhaps struggle between these two visions be the personal cause of the tragic peripeteia, having the meaning of learning of this new state and testing that pair of eyes, which the angel left him? What is the difference between a dress by Galliano and the "new dress" by Virginia Woolf (it's interesting how a collection ingrained in this story would look like)?

Tributes: I am grateful for the help and support in these investigations to my colleagues – Natalie Marchuk, Sergey Kopylov, Elena Komissarova and my colleague and husband Anatoly Volynets.