Let us assume society's authoritarian strictness is fiercely biological. In that case, logically, I would also have to succumb to it, as I also have a biology.
I don’t think the analysis of biologically determined social strictness can work unless we give “biology” a very loose definition. It obviously has a social component, or else we would not be able to talk about different expressions of authoritarian strictness, as they may change throughout historical time.
I have actually entertained this idea before, of a kind of “biological” strictness in the very loose sense of what that might mean. More precisely, I looked into the the nexus of Bataille’s and Lacan’s formulations regarding psychology. Both do actually address the issue of authoritarian strictness as a feature of everyday psychology. In fact the model, as you would guess, is largely psychoanalysis – although Bataille, unlike Lacan, brings in Nietzsche and Marx.
So we have this idea of biological strictness that is actually also social in some way. How do we codify this? Well, we give it the term, Superego.
But then there is the question of how overarching superego is. Bataille addresses this question, but not Lacan. For Lacan the internalization of authoritarian strictness just is what it is. There is no possibility of modifying the structure of the psyche.
For Bataille, the answer is different. Bataille is strange because, without wishing to deny biology, he is determined to be fiercely human. Therefore, he embraces the authoritarian strictness, but only up to a point.
In fact, Bataille wants to benefit from the existence of the internalization of authoritarianism relating to our biological nature. He realizes that such internalization of authority keeps us in thrall to societal mores, as narrow social objects. To increase subjectivity one must shatter this social object one is prone to become. Shattering the object releases the subjectivity from this narrow objectification of the self (for what is authoritarianism other than self-objectification?) One has to shatter the objectified self again and again. In doing so, one releases subjectivity.
How does one shatter “the object”? By defying the limits of socially imposed biological strictness. Bataille is famous for his dalliance with prostitutes.
Again and again he shattered his prestige-seeking social self, to release the potential of life as lived experience.
You see the exchange? Social virtue versus lived experience.
It seems the two are dynamically in opposition, much of the time.
Of course, most academic readers recoil in horror at the idea of shattering the prestige-seeking social entity (I hesitate to use the term, "subject" , because that which reflexively seeks status is more of an "object" unto itself. ). They don’t believe there is anything that can exist beyond this state of being. So they stop there and label Bataille as some kind of deranged monster, without understanding that he was addressing deeper human needs in relation to the real dynamics of the psyche. It’s very interesting how this can be overlooked, because the tactics he uses do really increase subjective pleasure, subjective self-knowledge and one’s ability to live on one’s own terms, rather than complying with authoritarian strictness.
All the same, the barrier to understanding Bataille properly is in the the way the already existing authoritarian strictness limits self-knowledge. For most academics, this is like the angel that guards the Garden of Eden, informing us that we are “sinners” and preventing our return.
Bataille, however, says, “Sure we are sinners! That is our human nature. “ He encourages us to return to the Garden of Eden to relive his fall from grace again and again.
I don’t think the analysis of biologically determined social strictness can work unless we give “biology” a very loose definition. It obviously has a social component, or else we would not be able to talk about different expressions of authoritarian strictness, as they may change throughout historical time.
I have actually entertained this idea before, of a kind of “biological” strictness in the very loose sense of what that might mean. More precisely, I looked into the the nexus of Bataille’s and Lacan’s formulations regarding psychology. Both do actually address the issue of authoritarian strictness as a feature of everyday psychology. In fact the model, as you would guess, is largely psychoanalysis – although Bataille, unlike Lacan, brings in Nietzsche and Marx.
So we have this idea of biological strictness that is actually also social in some way. How do we codify this? Well, we give it the term, Superego.
But then there is the question of how overarching superego is. Bataille addresses this question, but not Lacan. For Lacan the internalization of authoritarian strictness just is what it is. There is no possibility of modifying the structure of the psyche.
For Bataille, the answer is different. Bataille is strange because, without wishing to deny biology, he is determined to be fiercely human. Therefore, he embraces the authoritarian strictness, but only up to a point.
In fact, Bataille wants to benefit from the existence of the internalization of authoritarianism relating to our biological nature. He realizes that such internalization of authority keeps us in thrall to societal mores, as narrow social objects. To increase subjectivity one must shatter this social object one is prone to become. Shattering the object releases the subjectivity from this narrow objectification of the self (for what is authoritarianism other than self-objectification?) One has to shatter the objectified self again and again. In doing so, one releases subjectivity.
How does one shatter “the object”? By defying the limits of socially imposed biological strictness. Bataille is famous for his dalliance with prostitutes.
Again and again he shattered his prestige-seeking social self, to release the potential of life as lived experience.
You see the exchange? Social virtue versus lived experience.
It seems the two are dynamically in opposition, much of the time.
Of course, most academic readers recoil in horror at the idea of shattering the prestige-seeking social entity (I hesitate to use the term, "subject" , because that which reflexively seeks status is more of an "object" unto itself. ). They don’t believe there is anything that can exist beyond this state of being. So they stop there and label Bataille as some kind of deranged monster, without understanding that he was addressing deeper human needs in relation to the real dynamics of the psyche. It’s very interesting how this can be overlooked, because the tactics he uses do really increase subjective pleasure, subjective self-knowledge and one’s ability to live on one’s own terms, rather than complying with authoritarian strictness.
All the same, the barrier to understanding Bataille properly is in the the way the already existing authoritarian strictness limits self-knowledge. For most academics, this is like the angel that guards the Garden of Eden, informing us that we are “sinners” and preventing our return.
Bataille, however, says, “Sure we are sinners! That is our human nature. “ He encourages us to return to the Garden of Eden to relive his fall from grace again and again.
No comments:
Post a Comment