Nowhere is this fetishist logic more evident than apropos of Tibet, one of the central references of the post-Christian "spiritual" imaginary. Today, Tibet more and more plays the role of such a fantasmatic Thing, of a jewel which, when one approaches it too much, turns into the excremental object. It is a commonplace to claim that the fascination exerted by Tibet on the Western imagination, especially on the broad public in the US, provides an exemplary case of the "colonization of the imaginary." It reduces the actual Tibet to a screen for the projection of Western ideological fantasies. (http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/2/western.php Slavoj Zizek, "From Western Marxism to Western Buddhism")
I am a bit confused. Isn't imaginary the world before language? So how can imginary be colonized? And how can this "Tibet" world fantasy be in imginary?
Plus: I do not know why, but suddenly, there are so many talks of Slavoj Zizek and critical theory.... Is Slavoj Zizek that famous?