Notes on an Essay by Stéphane Sitayeb: 'Sexualized Objects in D. H. Lawrence’s Short Fiction: Eros and Thanatos'

Fragment of stained glass (19th century)

7.2 x 3.2 cm (whole object) 

Royal Collection Trust

 

 

I. 

 

Stéphane Sitayeb's essay on sexualised objects in D. H. Lawrence's short fiction [1] is a fascinating read if, like me, you are interested in such things. 

 

However, I'm not sure I share his insistence on giving material items an all-too-human symbolic interpretation. Sometimes, a white stocking is a white stocking and that's precisely wherein its allure resides for the fetishist and object-oriented philosopher, if not, perhaps, for the literary scholar keen to open a "new figurative level of reading".  

 

And his claim that Lawrence resolved to "awaken his readers' spirituality by inducing a shock therapy paradoxically based on physicality, with explicit references to sexualized items and licentious tendencies", is not one I agree with either. In fact, I don't think Lawrence gave a fig for his readers' spirituality. 

 

And, again, just because an object stands upright, that doesn't always mean it has phallic significance; even Freud recognised that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and doesn't represent anything, or always express unconscious human desire. Thus, when Sitayeb says that "Lacanian readings of Lawrence have fathomed the hidden meaning of phallic objects in his fiction", I want to beat him about the head with a large dildo [2].

     

 

II. 

 

Moving on, we discover that Sitayeb wishes to discuss objects in terms of Eros and Thanatos; i.e., as objects that lead to fulfilment on the one hand, and as objects that lead to self-destruction on the other. He rightly points out, however, that Lawrence's work demonstrates a complex connection between Love and Death and thus his fictitious objects "stimulate at once procreation and destruction, creativity and annihilation". 

 

The result is that death becomes sexy and sex becomes decadent and perverse; not so much tied to an ideal of love, as to numerous paraphlias, often involving objects or the objectification of body parts. Sitayeb mentions several of these, but by no means exhausts the number of kinky elements in Lawrence's work (elements which I have discussed elsewhere on Torpedo the Ark: see here, for example). 

 

 

III.

 

Sitayeb's reading of 'The Captain's Doll' in terms of agalmatophilia and pygmalionism is good. Perhaps not as good as mine in terms of dollification - click here - but good nonetheless. He certainly makes some interesting points, such as this one: "The interchangeability between subject and object is conveyed by an inversion of the invariable principles governing mechanic and organic matter." 

 

Similarly, his reading of 'Sun' is good, but not as good as mine: click here. Sitayeb still thinks Juliet's story simply involves an anthropomorphic type of sexuality and Lawrence's "conception of Nature as a macrocosm incorporating man", but it's far more important philosophically than that.   

 

As for 'The Thimble' - a short story that formed the basis of the 1922 novella The Ladybird - the ornate object in question is not first and foremost a symbol of unfulfilled sexual desire and Mrs. Hepburn's fiddling with it is not a form of symbolic masturbation. This lazy and old-fashioned psychosexual reading just bores the pants off me and I really can't fathom why Sitayeb bothers to refer to it.   

 

 

IV. 

 

Sometimes, Sitayeb says things that I do not understand: "Lawrence studied the escalation of desire for both objects and subjects in the presence of imitation and rivalry patterns." But that's probably due to my ignorance of theories to do with mimesis on the one hand (I've certainly never read a word of René Girard) and my suspicion of the concept on the other (I have read a fair deal of Derrida and Deleuze). Nevertheless, I enjoyed Sitayeb's reading of the love triangle in The Fox [3]. 

 

I also enjoyed his excellent reading of 'The White Stocking' - another story involving a love triangle, but this time one "not only composed of human objects of desire", but also including a material item "sexualized to express an unsatisfied ambition such as an impossible sexual act" (i.e., the white stocking). Sitayeb says that this is more precisely termed a split-object triangle and I'll take his word for that. 

 

Sitayeb also notes:    

 

"In the absence of Elsie’s secret lover [...] the eponymous object acts as a reminder of a passionate adulterous dance and a catalyst reactivating the ecstasy of forbidden desire. In the presence of the object, Elsie is invested with a sexual energy, even away from her lover." 

 

And that's true, although I'm not sure I think Elsie vain and superficial simply because she likes silk stockings and jewellery; I mean, who doesn't? But then, having said that, I did call her a 'pricktease with pearl earrings' in a case study published on Torpedo the Ark four years ago: click here.

 

 

V.

 

Ultimately, what Sitayeb wants to suggest is that within consumer society, objects - be they directly or indirectly eroticised - become dangerous shape-shifting agents, as commodity culture becomes increasingly death-driven. And he thinks that's what Lawrence illustrates in 'Things', a tale which tells of the syllomania of an American couple addicted to collecting beautiful objects:

 

"Through their syllomania - the pathological need to acquire and hoard objects [...] - the couple [...] indirectly socializes and sexualizes the various objects that they have purchased to decorate their home by replacing their usual libido sexualis with a libido oeconomicus, thus linking Eros to Thanatos."

 

Sitayeb continues:

 

"Owning or consuming objects procures an immediate and transient feeling of satisfaction verging on ecstasy [...] which is nonetheless quickly replaced by an impression of void when their desire for objects becomes insatiable."      

 

Again, that's an insightful take on Lawrence's work and I was intrigued to see how Sitayeb related this to Baudrillard's thinking on the collusion between subjects and objects, the latter being an author of special interest to me, as torpedophiles will be aware:

 

"Baudrillard's main three arguments to account for men's attraction to trinkets are staged in Lawrence's short story. Both philosopher and author highlighted 1) the escapist function of objects of desire, since they represent a spatial and temporal vehicle transporting their owners into the past of various regions and cultures; 2) the feeling of conquest through the act of collecting, as the collector becomes conqueror; and 3) the access to higher social classes, a pose that D. H. Lawrence evokes with satirical overtones through the detached heterodiegetic narrator of 'Things'."

 

Expanding on this, Sitayeb writes:

 

"Far from attractive to the reader, the couple's bric-à-brac is presented as an overload of useless items due to an accumulation where all the objects are juxtaposed in a concatenation of long compound substantives preceded by adjectives evoking several national origins with little coherence. Just as every decorative item is deprived of real functionality, the words to name them also consist of mere signifiers for the reader, which confirms Baudrillard's idea that the difference between simple objects and objects of desire lies in "'the object's detachment from its functional, experienced reality'." [4]

 

Sitayeb concludes:

 

"Although Lawrence's ideology in 'Things' is comparable to Baudrillard's, the former interpreted the phenomenon as collective, not personal, warning his contemporary readers against the loss of identity resulting from the vain desire for objects, which he perceived as a post-traumatic stigma of a World War One."

 

 

VI.

 

The problem, ultimately, that I have with Sitayeb's reading of Lawrence is that he seems to subscribe to a notion of what Meillassoux termed correlationism - i.e., the idea that "we only ever have access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the other" [5].

Why do I say that - and why does it matter? 

Well, I say it because Sitayeb posits a two-way process wherein the desiring human mind shapes the material universe or world of objects, whilst the latter either fulfil or destroy us, and this permanent and privileged relationship is a form of correlationism, is it not? 

 

And this matters because it serves to make reality mind-dependent and I find such anthropocentrism not only untenable but objectionable - be it in Lawrence's work, or readings of Lawrence's work.     

 

 

Notes

 

[1] Stéphane Sitayeb, 'Sexualized Objects in D. H. Lawrence’s Short Fiction: Eros and Thanatos', Journal of the Short Story in English, No. 71, (Autumn 2018), pp. 133-147. Click here to read on openedition.org. All lines quoted are from the online version of the essay.

 

[2] It should also be noted that the phallus is not the same as an erect penis; a confusion that we can trace all the way back at least as far as Kate Millett, who claims in her Sexual Politics (1970), that Lawrence is guilty of transforming  his own model of masculinity into a misogynistic mystery religion founded upon the homoerotic worship of the penis. That's unfair and mistaken, as Lawrence himself emphasises that when he writes of the phallus, he is not simply referring to a mere member belonging to a male body and male agent. For Lawrence, the phallus is a genuine symbol of relatedness which forms a bridge not only between lovers, but to the future. Thus fear of the phallus - and frenzied efforts to nullify it in the name of a castrated spirituality, not least by confusing it with the penis - betray a great horror of being in touch. 

      Writing fifty years after Millett, one might have hoped Sitayeb would've not made this same error. I would suggest he see my Outside the Gate (Blind Cupid Press, 2010), where I discuss all this in relation to the case of Lady Chatterley, pp. 233-246. 

 

[3] My recent take on this novella by Lawrence can be found by clicking here. 

 

[4] Sitayeb is quoting from Baudrillard's Le Système des objets (1968), trans. James Benedict as The System of Objects, (Verso, 1996). 

      For me, Baudrillard's later work on objects (in relation, for example, to his theory of seduction) is far more interesting; here, he is still too much influenced by Marxist ideas and basically offers a political critique of consumer capitalism - as if, somehow, the subject might still differentiate themselves from the world of things and resist the evil genuis of the object.

 

[5] Quentin Meillassoux, After Finitude,  trans. Ray Brassier, (Continuum, 2008), p. 5.

I'm All Ears: Notes on the Strange Case of Momo and the Art of Listening

Momo bronze sculpture by Ulrike Enders (2007)

Photo: ChristianSchd (2014)

 

I. 

As many readers will know, Michael Ende - son of the German surrealist painter Edgar Ende - had a hugely successful career as a writer of fantasy and children's fiction, including the novel Momo (1973) [a], which concerns issues to do with being, time, and the stresses and strains of living in a consumer society.

 

The protagonist, Momo, is a mysterious young girl who possesses a remarkable ability to genuinely listen to others and who, like other children, understands that playing games, having fun, daydreaming etc., is anything but a waste of time.

 

Several philosophers have written in praise of the book, or drawn inspiration from it, including the Korean-born German philosopher Byung-Chul Han in The Expulsion of the Other [b] ...    

 

 

II. 

 

Thanks to our contemporary narcissism, says Han, "we are increasingly losing the ability to listen" [70] except to the sound of our own voice repeating within the echo chamber of an isolated self. 

 

Today, we lend no one an ear; that is to say, we no longer listen patiently and sympathetically, paying close attention to what is said and "affirming the Other in their otherness" [70]. And, on the other hand, no one listens to (or cares about) us - welcome to the digital madhouse and the hell of so-called social media (which is anything but):

 

"In analogue communication we usually have a concrete addressee, a personal counterpart. Digital communication, on the other hand, fosters an expansive, de-personalized communication that has no need of a personal counterpart, no need of a gaze or a voice. [74] 

 

You might feel you're at the centre of a global online community, but really you're in a void - or, if you prefer, caught up in what Han calls a shitstorm of affects and an accelerated exchange of information. Zoom might connect you electronically, but it simultaneously isolates you; it eliminates distance, "but gaplessness alone does not create personal closeness" [74].

 

And your friends on Facebook - well, they're not your friends; they're just like-minded individuals keen to self-advertise and raise their profile. 

 

We need, says Han, to develop a new political ethics of listening; to lend an ear to others and their language, their lives, their loves and fears, etc. We might simply call this compassion. And how do we develop such? 

 

Well, we might look to literature and characters such as Momo. She may just sit and listen to others, but Momo does so with utmost attention and sympathy and this has a magical effect: "She gives people ideas that would never have occurred to them on their own. Her listening [...] frees the Other for themselves." [76]

 

Han quotes the following passage from Ende's novel:

 

"Momo could listen in such a way that worried and indecisive people knew their own minds from one moment to the next, or shy people felt suddenly confident and at ease, or downhearted people felt happy and hopeful. And if someone felt that his life had been an utter failure, and that he himself was only one among millions of wholly unimportant people who could be replaced as easily as broken windowpanes, he would go pour out his heart to Momo. And even as he spoke, he would come to realize by some mysterious means that he was absolutely wrong: that there was only one person like himself in the whole world, and that, consequently, he mattered to the world in his own particular way. 

      Such was Momo's talent for listening." [77]

 

That's a good thing, I suppose - though admittedly I don't quite find this as moving or as convincing as Han. I wouldn't for example, speak of Momo giving back to people what essentially belongs to them and making some failure feel good about themselves, doesn't actually make them any less a loser.

 

Further, I worry that Momo is in danger of growing up to become one of those inverse cripples that Zarathustra speaks of; that is to say, a human being who lacks everything, except one massively overdeveloped organ, be that a giant all-seeing eye, or, as in this case, a huge ear that is open to every sound and sigh [c].  

 

Uncanny is the ear, as Derrida once said of what Freud calls the most obliging organ; the one we cannot close [d].

 

But isn't that the problem: we may have forgotten how to listen in the manner Byung-Chul Han advocates, but still the ear remains permanently open and thus all kinds of voices have easy access and we continuously receive all sorts of messages, including the lies of the State broadcast 24/7 via the news media, for example. 

 

Sometimes, one wishes not for a Momo-like ability to listen with compassion, but to be deaf to the world and able thus to experience the deepest silence [e].

 

 

Notes

 

[a] The full German title of Ende's prize-winning novel is Momo oder Die seltsame Geschichte von den Zeit-Dieben und von dem Kind, das den Menschen die gestohlene Zeit zurückbrachte [Momo, or the Strange Tale of the Time-Bandits and the Child Who Restored People's Stolen Time].

      The original English translation, by Frances Lobb, was entitled The Grey Gentlemen and published by Puffin Books in 1974. A new translation, by J. Maxwell Brownjohn, followed in 1985.     

 

[b] Byung-Chul Han, The Expulsion of the Other, trans. Wieland Hoban, (Polity Press, 2018). This text was originally published in German as Die Austreibung des Anderen, (S. Fischer Verlag, 2016). Page references to the English edition will be given directly in the post. 

 

[c] See the section 'On Redemption' in Book II of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. 

 

[d] Jacques Derrida, 'All Ears: Nietzsche's Otobiography', trans. Avital Ronell, Yale French Studies, No. 63, (Yale University Press, 1982), pp. 245-50. This essay can be accessed via JSTOR: click here.

 

[e] See the post: 'Dare to See the World Through Deaf Ears' (15 Jan 2013): click here. 

      One is concerned that there is both a phonocentrism and a form of audism running through Han's text, so pro-voice and pro-listening as he is. At the very least, we might question his privileging of speech and hearing.     

On the Politics of Disgust

Disgust makes her revulsion clear in Disney Pixar's 

Inside Out (dir. Pete Docter, 2015)

 

'Nothing is more important than for us to recognise that we are bound

and sworn to what provokes our most intense disgust.' - Georges Bataille

 

 

I. 

 

Arguably, disgust - as an expression of taste - betrays a high level of sensitivity and culture; an African dung beetle, for example, may be able to navigate by the stars, but it knows nothing of disgust. 

 

But then neither does a Sadean libertine, who has vanquished all emotional responses that might be regarded as all too human and all forms of pleasure rooted in the senses over which they lack control. Sade terms this form of asceticism or Stoic indifference to the natural passions, apathy and it is central to his philosophy in the bedroom. 

 

However, most of us are not Sadean libertines and do not posit apathy as an erotic ideal, nor strive to overcome our disgust for shit-eating (coprophagy) and corpse-fucking (necrophilia), for example, as signs of our superiority. We might even view apathy, in the end, as the way in which a madman seeks to justify his lack of remorse or compassion for others.    

 

 

II. 

 

Disgust, as Tina Kendall rightly says, "has long been a subject of anxious speculation" [1]. 

 

And as she also reminds us: 

 

"Recently, there has been a revitalisation of debates pertaining to disgust from across a range of disciplines, as witnessed by publications in the fields of philosophical aesthetics, phenomenology, cognitive and moral psychology, literary theory, and feminist and queer theory." [2] 

 

Continuing: 

 

"What unites much of this interdisciplinary work on disgust is a shared concern with thinking through the relations between bodily sensation, emotion, and cognition [...] and with probing the political, moral, and ethical implications that arise from those particular conditions of embodiment." [3]

 

That's true, I think, though I also agree with Martha Nussbaum, who suggests that what is most interesting about disgust is that it often acts as an intensifier of other negative emotions, such as anger or hatred. 

 

But what is the origin of disgust: is it rooted in evolutionary biology, or is it primarily an emotional phenomenon - with an added moral dimension - that is determined culturally?

 

Darwin famously wrote on the subject and seemed to believe that disgust is an evolved response to potential dangers, such as rotten meat, or body products that can spread disease (such as excrement). This identifies disgust - mostly associated with our sense of smell and taste - as an important defensive mechanism, protecting us from pathogens, etc. It's not, therefore, the wholly irrational reaction that some people imagine.   

 

But, of course, we can experience disgust for things we don't like the look or feel of too - and some people with particularly sensitive ears can even find certain noises disgusting (readers can provide their own examples, many of which will doubtless involve bodily functions).

 

There's extensive research evidence that women experience greater levels of disgust - including self-disgust and sexual disgust - than men. Again, there may well be physiological reasons for this, but it's surely something that has been socially reinforced.

There's also evidence that forms of visceral prejudice, such as racism and homophobia, are rooted in disgust and not just in ignorance, as many idealists like to believe - which is why education isn't the solution they hope it will be. In some cases, disgust for others is so overwhelming that it prevents individuals from self-examination or ever learning to love their neighbour. 

 

Ultimately, the greater one's level of disgust, the greater one's level of hate for those who inspire such and the greater one's desire to do away with them; we recall once more the case of Gregor Samsa. Fascism is the collective political expression of disgust which denies not only the rights of other citizens, but their humanity, and this results (ironically) in the most disgusting acts and scenes imaginable. 

 

And yet, disgust may also be the strong vital sensation that Kant said it was; one that prevents us from committing acts of atrocity or vile crimes. 

 

Besides, as Walter Benjamin concluded, no one is ever completely free from disgust; not even the Sadean libertine, who never really overcomes their instinct of revulsion, merely redirects it, so that, for example, they feel disgust for conventional forms of love and moral behaviour. 

 

In sum, and to quote Tina Kendall once more, disgust's complex and "distinctly polymorphic nature" [4] as both a visceral reflex and a leared emotional response, makes it a "uniquely privileged concept" [5] and critical tool for thinking through a number of important issues. 

 

The philosopher, therefore, can never just say eww! and look away from that which (rightly perhaps) revolts the non-philosopher living in Tunbridge Wells.    

 

 

Notes

 

[1] Tina Kendall, 'Tarrying with Disgust', an Introduction to Volume 15, Issue 2 of the journal Film-Philosophy, ed. Tina Kendall, (Edinburgh University Press, Oct 2011), p. 1. 

      Click here to read Kendall's Introduction; or click here to read the entire issue on academia.edu 

[2] Ibid.  

[3-5] Ibid., p. 2. 

Baby You're So Overweight, Baby You're the One (Some Thoughts on Fat Acceptance, etc.)

Lucien Freud: Benefits Supervisor Sleeping (1995) [1]

I. 

 

According to the 15th-century English monk and poet John Lydgate: 'You can please some of the people all of the time; you can please all of the people some of the time; but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.' 

 

And so it is that emails from disgruntled readers are sometimes sent my way, such as the following:

 

Dear Stephen Alexander,

 

Whilst pleased to see in your latest post - Reflections on Venus Emerging Slowly from an Old Bathtub - that you at least considered the possibility of extending the notion of what constitutes beauty, as a fat activist I was disappointed to see you include in your list of so-called vile bodies - a truly deplorable phrase, for which you should apologise - all the usual body types, including obese bodies, that have traditionally been discriminated against and classed as ugly. 

 

The fat acceptance movement - also known as fat pride - campaigns to eliminate the social stigma, stereotypes, and prejudice surrounding obesity and empower the big-bodied to feel good about themselves. Being overweight - whatever that means - is not a crime; being fat is not a sin; and obesity is not a disease (anymore than a diet is a cure). Nor do I feel that obese people should be classified as disabled.    

 

Please make an effort to better educate yourself on this issue, so that maybe one day you'll write something positive about Big Beautiful Women such as myself.

 

 

 

II. 

 

In reply, I wrote:

 

Dear Big Beautiful Woman [2],

 

You're right, of course, one should always look to increase and deepen one's knowledge of various subjects. But it might interest you to learn that one of the earliest posts published on Torpedo the Ark concerned fat as a transpolitical issue [click here]. 

 

Further, as someone who has read quite a lot of radical theory, I'm well aware of how issues concerning not just weight, but race, class, and sexuality, for example, all traverse the (often female) body. And so I have no problem accepting fat activism and, indeed, fat studies as a valid field of interdisciplinary research. I would therefore like to think I'm not particularly sizeist or fat phobic (though accept the possibility of my habouring unconscious bias towards plus-size individuals). 

 

As for the phrase vile bodies, this may be deplorable, as you say, but it is not one I coined and nor, if I'm honest, do I feel inclined to apologise for it [3]. Sometimes we need terms that can make us weep. And arguably, the term that you use to describe yourself - BBW - is just as problematic, as it lends itself to a porno-fetishisation of body size and shape [4].

 

Having said that, I can see how it might be preferable to be thought sexy - even if in a kinky manner - rather than ugly, unhealthy, or disabled and perhaps an affirmation of one's body type is better than self-loathing (though personally, I'm as wary of taking pride in one's size as I am of taking pride in one's sexuality or race, and certainly don't support the building of an identity politics on the basis of what is often simply shame on the recoil).               

 

Notes

 

[1] This famous work by Lucien Freud is a portrait of 280lb Sue Tilley, whom Freud painted several times during the period 1994-96, fascinated as he was by the texture of her flesh. It was bought by Roman Abramovich for $33.6 million (£17.2 million), at Christie's New York, in 2008.

 

[2] I'm using this term - Big Beautiful Woman - to address my correspondent as it was how she referred to herself. Commonly abbreviated to BBW, it was coined by Carole Shaw who, in 1979, launched a fashion and lifestyle magazine for plus-size women. Since then, the term has spread widely and can be found in online dating profiles and on porn sites, for example, replacing other euphemisms for fat, such as full-figured, curvy, or voluptuous. 

      The male equivalent - Big Handsome Man (BHM) - is often used in the gay community, where those attracted to and seeking out such men are known as chubby chasers.    

 

[3] The term vile bodies is of course associated with Evelyn Waugh and his 1930 novel of that title. Obviously, I was using it in a very different context from the latter, who, if I remember correctly, was referring to the bright young things who shamelessly flaunted their flesh at endless parties.

[4] Fat fetishism - or the sexual desire for the obese other primarily because of their weight and size - often involves feeding so that the beloved object intentionally increases their body fat. Some devotees also enjoy squashing (i.e., the feeling of being crushed beneath mounds of warm flesh). Fat fetishism is usually termed fat appreciation (or fat admiration) - FA - by those in the know. 

      Whilst I'm happy for those involved in this kinky subculture to find pleasure wherever (and however) they like, it's worth noting that the politics of the relationships often mirror, reinforce, or perversely exaggerate existing dynamics of power. There is nothing inherently radical, therefore, in FA or any other form of paraphilia.     

Music bonus: Adam and the Ants, Fat Fun - recorded as an unused b-side at Rockfield Studios in 1980 - click here.

      This song, from Adam's early punk days, was originally written in collabration with guitarist Lester Square (later of the Monochrome Set). It has remained one he often performs live with the Ants to this day. The track was included in the Adam and the Ants box set, Antbox (Columbia Records, 2000). 

Reflections on Venus Emerging Slowly From an Old Bathtub

The Venus of Willendorf [1]

Image: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien

nhm-wien.ac.at

 

 

I.

 

I recently reflected on how the figure of a woman emerging from the sea allows us to glimpse something of the goddess Aphrodite in her flesh; and how, in turn, this invites us to consider the relationship we have with our own bodies and the bodies of others (as well as the nature of the divine) [2]. 

 

Of course, such meditations are made easier when that woman is, for example, Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder, or Ana de Macedo skipping among the fishes and rock pools, like a Portuguese Venus; one could spend all day happily musing on lithe and lovely limbs and firm young breasts, etc. 

 

It is not so easy, or so pleasurable, however, to consider what we might collectively term vile bodies - i.e., old bodies, ugly bodies, obese bodies, deformed bodies, mutilated bodies, and, at the extreme, dead bodies (there is surely nothing more repulsive than a decomposing corpse, which is why necrophilia remains such a rare phenomenon).

 

The problem, as Nietzsche pointed out, is that everything ugly weakens and saddens the spectator [3]. Thus, reflecting upon vile bodies has a dangerous psycho-physiological effect; it actually depresses and deprives one of strength. 

 

Ugliness, like sickness, is therefore not only a sign and symptom of degeneration, but a cause of such; which is why healthy happy souls prefer to be surrounded by beauty and turn to art when such is lacking in reality; for art, as Nietzsche says, is the great stimulant of life - a counterforce to all denial of wellbeing [4]. 

 

However, having said all this, the philosopher, as Nietzsche understands them, is one who lives dangerously and who can not only embrace more of human history (in its entirety) as their own, but, like the artist or great poet, find beauty in those individuals, things, and events where most people would see only horror and look away in disgust. 

 

 

II. 

 

And so we come to Rimbaud's poem, Venus Anadyomène (1870); one that I think important, but which critics often overlook, or dismiss as less serious than his later (more mature) verses. 

 

For one thing, the poem - written when Rimbaud was just sixteen - challenges static and traditional ideals of feminine beauty [5] and dares readers to glimpse some aspect of the divine even in an ulcerated anus (which, admittedly, isn't easy). 

 

Wherever the poet might be taking us, we're a long way from Botticelli and moving towards Bataille territory; this hideously beautiful Venus in an old bathtub serves as the vehicle of love in much the same manner that a drunken woman vomiting - or a dog devouring the stomach of a goose - perform the role [6].   

 

Ultimately, not being a scholar of French literature or a Rimbaud expert, I'm unsure what he intended with this verse; is it a serious (slightly disturbing) attempt to revalue beauty, or simply an adolescent parody of the Venus myth - who knows? 

Anyway, readers can decide for themselves by clicking here to access Venus Anadyomène as found in Rimbaud: Complete Works, Selected Letters, a bilingual edition trans. Wallace Fowlie and revised by Seth Whidden, (University of Chicago Press, 2005).

 

 

Notes

 

[1] The Venus of Willendorf is a small figurine, carved from limestone tinted with red ochre, and believed to have been made almost 30,000 years ago in the Paleolithic period (i.e., the Old Stone Age). It was found in 1908, during archaeological excavations at a site near Willendorf, a village in Lower Austria. Anyone wishing to see it should get along to the Natural History Museum in Vienna. 

 

[2] See the post entitled 'And Venus Among the Fishes Skips' (18 Feb 2022): click here. 

 

[3] See Nietzsche, 'Expeditions [or Skirmishes] of an Untimely Man', §20, in Twilight of the Idols.  

 

[4] See Nietzsche, The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale, ed. Walter Kaufmann, (Vintage Books, 1968), §853 (II), p. 452.    

[5] For more on the challenge to these ideals presented by Rimbaud's poem, see the essay by Seth Whidden, 'Rimbaud Writing on the Body: Anti-Parnassian Movement and Æsthetics in "Vénus Anadyomène"', in Nineteenth-Century French Studies, vol. 27, no. 3/4, (University of Nebraska Press, 1999), pp. 333–45. This essay can also be accessed online via JSTOR: click here.

 

[6] See Georges Bataille, 'The Solar Anus', in Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939, ed. Alan Stoekl, trans. Allan Stoekl with Carl R. Lovitt and Donald M. Leslie Jr., (University of Minnesota Press, 1985), pp. 5-9. The lines I refer to are on p. 6. 

 

 

And Venus Among the Fishes Skips

Ana de Macedo: the Venus of Alentejo

Photo used with permission from her Instagram account 

@ana_macedo

 

 

 I. 

 

Venus rising from the sea - or, as the Little Greek would say, αναδυομένη Αφροδίτη - is, of course, one of the iconic figures within the cultural (and pornographic) imagination of the West.  

 

According to Athenaeus, the idea was inspired by the ancient Greek courtesan Phryne [1], who liked to let down her hair and step naked into the sea, particularly during the time when the Eleusinian Mysteries were being celebrated, or festivals held in honour of Poseidon . 

The renowned painter Apelles created a much-admired picture of this event [2], whilst the equally renowned scuptor Praxiteles - who was one of Phryne's many lovers - is believed to have used her as the model for his statue of Aphrodite (the first life-sized nude female form ever sculpted in ancient Greece). 

 

Although some historians have pooh-poohed the story of Phryne's skinny dipping in the sea as sensationalised fabrication [3], I can happily believe it, and see how it might inspire artists. For as D. H. Lawrence writes, we glimpse the gods in the bodies of men and women [4] ... 

 

 

II. 

 

In his poem 'The Man of Tyre', for example, Lawrence describes a man watching as a woman who had waded into the pale green sea of evening in order to wash herself, now turns, and comes slowly back to shore:

 

 

Oh lovely, lovely, with the dark hair piled up, as she went deeper,

      deeper down the channel, then rose shallower, shallower,

with the full thighs slowly lifting of the wader wading shorewards

and the shoulders pallid with light from the silent sky behind

both breasts dim and mysterious, with the glamorous kindness

      of twilight between them

and the dim blotch of black maidenhair like an indicator,

giving a message to the man. 

 

So in the cane-brake he clasped his hands in delight

that could only be god-given, and murmured:

Lo! God is one god! but here in the twilight

godly and lovely comes Aphrodite out of the sea

towards me! [5]

 

 

However, Lawrence also catches sight of the gods in the bodies of animals too. Thus, in the poem 'Whales weep not!', he informs us that Aphrodite is a happy hot-blooded she-whale:

and Venus among the fishes skips and is a she-dolphin

she is the gay, delighted porpoise sporting with love and the sea

she is the female tunny-fish, round and happy among the males

and dense with happy blood, dark rainbow bliss in the sea.

 

 

These are surely some of the loveliest lines in Lawrence's poetry and, crucially, they encourage us to reconsider (i) the relation we have to ourselves and our own flesh; (ii) the relation we have to others and their bodies; (iii) the relation we have to animals; and (iv) the relation we have to the gods.

 

And, surely, that's the purpose of art, isn't it?    

 

 

Fresco from Pompei, Casa di Venus, 1st century AD 

A classic example of Venus Anadyomene

 

 

Notes

 

[1] Phryne, whose real name (somewhat ironically) was Mnesarete, was born c. 371 BC and became a notorious member of that highly educated class of companion women known as hetaerae [ἑταῖραι]. She is perhaps best remembered for her beauty and for her trial for impiety (a capital offence), where she was defended by the orator Hypereides (another of her lovers). 

      When it seemed as if his arguments might be falling on deaf ears, Hypereides removed Phryne's robe and bared her breasts before the judges in order to arouse their pity. This seemed to do the trick; the judges decided they could not condemn a priestess of Aphrodite to death. And so Phyrne was acquitted. Little wonder that modern poets and artists have continued to find her irresistable.     

 

[2] Sadly, this picture is now lost. It is mentioned, however, in Pliny's Natural History [XXXV, 86-87] According to the Roman author, Apelles employed Pancaspe (aka Campaspe) - mistress to Alexander the Great - as his model. 

 

[3] See for example Christine Mitchell Havelock, The Aphrodite of Knidos and Her Successors: A Historical Review of the Female Nude in Greek Art, (The University of Michigan Press, 1995). 

 

[4] See the post 'I Shall Speak of Geist, of Flame, and of Glimpses' (29 Sept 2021), where I speak of Lawrence's idea of glimpsing something divine in mortal being with reference to his poetry. 

      And see also 'The Southend Venus' (26 Aug 2016) and 'The Southend Venus (Alternative Version)' (27 Aug, 2016), where I write of glimpsing the goddess in the girl on a beach in Essex. 

[5] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Man of Tyre', in The Poems, Vol. I, ed. Christopher Pollnitz, (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 606-607.

[6] D. H. Lawrence, 'Whales weep not!', in The Poems, Vol. I, ibid., pp. 607-608. Lines quoted p. 608.

 

 

For a related post to this one, discussing Rimbaud's poetic take on the idea of Venus anadyomene, click here. 

The Tragic Tale of Two Dead Sea Eagles (and a Tory MP)

This eagle is no more. He has ceased to be ...

(Image: Dorset Police)

 

 

It was bad enough when a pioneering project to reintroduce (over a ten year period) sixty white-tailed eagles - once Britain's largest bird of prey - into Norfolk was suddenly cancelled last year, following the usual complaints from local farmers and estate owners concerned about the impact on their precious sheep and game birds (i.e., the animals they slaughter and shoot for profit). 

 

But now, two of the twenty-five eagles released on the Isle of Wight in 2019, but known to have spent time in East Anglia and other areas of southern England, have been found dead - and one very much doubts they died from natural causes (which is why toxicological examinations are being conducted).   

 

Well done to those cunts responsible - you've performed a real public service by poisoning these rare and beautiful birds, extinct in the UK since the eary 20th-century, following extensive habitat destruction combined with many years of deadly persecution. 

 

And congratulations also to the Conservative MP for West Dorset, Chris Loder, who has said eagles are not welcome in his constituency and that police should not be wasting time and money investigating how these two birds died. Of course, it might be noted that Mr. Loder had his 2019 election campaign funded to the tune of £14,000 by Ilchester Estates, which organises shoots in his constituency ... 

 

However, speaking to The Guardian, Loder insisted that he was not influenced by the donation from the estate and his opposition to the presence of eagles in his constituency was based on fears for the impact this would have on farming: 

 

"My views on sea eagles come from me being a farmer's son and my continued best efforts to represent the needs of West Dorset's farming community. I am not convinced that sea eagles being here are in their best interests. No briefing or consultation has taken place with me or others that I know of by Natural England, campaigners, nor the RSPB to explain how these risks are managed, nor to inform the farming community that indeed these birds are in Dorset.

      My policy views are formed in the best interests of the rural community I represent, which is also my home and where I was brought up. Any suggestion that I have been unduly influenced in this view is completely wrong." [1]

 

Readers can decide for themselves what they think of this. Personally, I wish there were fewer farmers, landowners, gamekeepers, hunters, and members of parliament and far more birds of every variety and species, including raptors, in British skies. 

 

And what D. H. Lawrence once wrote with reference to a mountain lion, we can say also of a white-tailed eagle; what a gap in the world it makes when one is killed, whereas how little missed would a couple of million human beings be [2].     

 

 

Notes

 

[1] The article by Helena Horton in The Guardian (15 Feb 2022) from which I quote can be read in full by clicking here. 

 

[2] See Lawrence's poem 'Mounain Lion', in The Poems, Vol. I, ed. Christopher Pollnitz, (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 351-52.  

In Defence of Jeff Koons's Easyfun-Ethereal

Cover of the exhibition catalogue 

published by Harry N. Abrams (2001) [1]

 

 

I. 

 

Clearly, Jeff Koons features as a very special kind of hate figure in the work of Byung-Chul Han. 

 

Not only does he have an intense dislike for the ultra-smoothness of Koons's sculptural works - including his stainless steel Rabbit (1986), which, for Han, reflects a social imperative lacking in all negativity [2] - but he doesn't much care for Koons's paintings either. 

 

Writing with reference to the Easyfun-Ethereal series in which a wide variety of things, including food items and human body parts, are assembled, Han says:

 

"His pictures mirror our society, which has become a department store. It is stuffed full of short-lived objects and advertisements. It has lost all otherness, all foreignness; thus it is no longer possible to marvel at anything. Jeff Koons's art, which merges seamessly with consumer culture, elevates consumerism to a figure of salvation." [3] 

 

Well, maybe: but then, on the other hand, it could be that Koons's work is actually a critique of consumerism, exposing the false hopes, empty dreams, and the banality of the mass produced goods that the latter trades in. 

 

If you don't want to buy that, then try this: maybe what Koons is attempting to do is give back to things their strangeness and inviting us to delight in the culture we inhabit - as is, and free from shame and snobbery. To assist in the overcoming of bad conscience - i.e., to allow people to take pleasure in the things they like without feeling guilty, or having to justify their tastes - would be a good thing, no?   

 

 

II. 

 

In the Easyfun-Ethereal series, Koons has cut and pasted (seemingly at random) pictues found in glossy magazines and old ads, as well as photographs of his own, creating digital collages that appear to be as chaotic as they are colourful. 

 

Although initially this work is performed on a computer using Photoshop softwear, the electronic images are then transformed into traditional oil on canvas paintings, with painstaking photo-realist attention to detail; Koons and his team of assistants spend months meticulously applying computer-calibrated colours by hand. 

 

The word traditional may seem an odd one to use with reference to Koons's paintings. But, as a matter of fact, that's exactly what his work is. Far from emerging out of nowhere, his paintings are rich in many elements that recall art history (and not just Pop art history). Unlike Han, I think there's much to marvel at in the windows of our great department stores - and much to marvel at in Koons's pictures too. 

 

His canvases don't merely mirror our society, they also - more importantly - speak of what Levi Bryant termed the democracy of objects, i.e., a flat ontological realm wherein objects of all sorts - from hot dogs, elephants, and rollercoasters, to lips, wigs, and bikini bottoms - equally exist without being reducible to other objects and can dynamically interact outside of any transcendent system of meaning [4].        

 

This, for me at least, gives Koons's work not only cultural and aesthetic interest, but philosophical import too. But readers can make up their own mind by visiting his website and viewing the twenty-four pictures - from Auto to Venus - that make up the Easyfun-Ethereal series: click here.    

 

 

Notes

 

[1] This catalogue was published on the occasion of an exhibition that ran from 27 Oct 2000 - 14 Jan 2001, featuring seven new works by Jeff Koons commissioned for the Deutsche Guggenheim (Berlin). Illustrated with full-colour reproductions, the catalogue also includes an interview with the artist by David Sylvester, as well as an essay by Robert Rosenblum analysing Koons's technique and imagery.

 

[2] See the post entitled 'On Smoothness' (5 Dec 2021): click here.  

 

[3] Byung-Chul Han, The Expulsion of the Other, trans. Wieland Hoban, (Polity Press, 2018), p. 59.  

[4] See: Levi R. Bryant, The Democracy of Objects, (Open Humanities Press, 2011). 

 

    

Love (A Post for Valentine's Day)

Love is the flower of life: it blossoms unexpectedly and without law

and must be plucked where it is found, and enjoyed for the brief hour of its duration.

 

 

Although a self-declared priest of love, D. H. Lawrence was always ambivalent about the latter and quick to qualify his own remarks in praise of love. Thus, for example, he declares: "Love is the happiness of the world." But then immediately points out that "happiness is not the whole of fulfilment".

 

In the same essay, he writes: "Love is a coming together. But there can be no coming together without an equivalent going asunder." Indeed, according to Lawrence, "the coming together depends on the going apart; the systole depends on the diastole; the flow depends upon the ebb".

Thus it is that: "There can never be love universal and unbroken [...] The undisputed reign of love can never be."  

 

Which is one in the eye for Jesus and all the other love-idealists, including St. Valentine who was martyred on this day in 269, and whom lovebirds the world over commemorate by buying flowers, boxes of chocolates, heart-shaped balloons, etc. 

 

Lawrence's central message seems to be that love is a process, or journey, of some kind. But that it is fatal to push this process into a goal or mistakenly believe, like the much-loved Scottish writer Robert Louis Stevenson, that it is better to travel than to arrive. 

 

This, says, Lawrence is the nihilistic belief of those who are "in love with love" and fail to understand that to arrive is "the supreme joy after all travelling". For in arriving, "one passes beyond love, or, rather, one encompasses love in a new transcendence". 

 

To insist on love as something that knows no consummation - an interminable journey stretching on to infinity like an endless straight road - is an abysmal thought; one which demonsrates a will to arrest the spring. 

In the novel Aaron's Rod (1922), Lawrence puts it this way:

 

"The aim of any process is not the perpetuation of that process, but the completion thereof. Love is a process of the incomprehensible human soul: love also incomprehensible, but still only a process. The process should work to a completion, not to some horror of intensification and extremity wherein the soul and the body ultimately perish. The completion of the process of love is the arrival at a state of simple, pure self-possession, for man and woman. Only that. Which isn't exciting enough for us sensationalists. We prefer abysses and maudlin self-abandon and self-sacrifice, the degeneration into a sort of slime and merge.

      Perhaps, truly, the process of love is never accomplished. But it moves in great stages, and at the end of each stage a true goal, where the soul possesses itself in simple and generous singleness. Without this, love is a disease."

 

 

Note: Apart from the final passage from Aaron's Rod, which can be found on p. 166 of the Cambridge Edition (1988), ed. Mara Kalnins, all lines quoted are from Lawrence's essay 'Love', which was first published in the English Review in January 1918, but which can also be found in Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine and Other Essays, ed. Michael Herbert, (Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 5-12.

 

 

On Transitioning

Ralph Bates and Martine Beswick in Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde 

(dir. Roy Ward Baker, 1971)

 

 

I always smile when I hear someone claim they were born in the wrong body ...

 

For it has to be one of the most ridiculous things that anyone can say; not only does it presuppose a metaphysical subject in a Cartesian manner, but it hints also at the transmigration of souls.    

 

However, so powerful has the so-called trans lobby become, that we're all obliged to sit up and take notice whenever a man claims that he is really a woman, or a woman claims she's really a man. 

 

That is to say, not only born in the wrong body, but trapped in the wrongly sexed body as well and thus in need of medical and surgical assistance in order to reassign their sex and ensure that their physical appearance and sexual characteristics resemble those associated with their identified gender. 

 

This is termed transitioning - a process that can take many months or even several years [1]. Indeed, some non-binary or genderqueer individuals may spend their whole life transitioning; continually redefining and re-interpreting who and what they are, without ever arriving at a fixed identity. 

 

Unfortunately, whilst this sounds like fun, turning a process into a goal or an end in itself, can also be dangerous. For according to Deleuze and Guattari, prolonging a process indefinitely is what produces the unfortunate figure of the false schizophrenic, who invariably ends up in a mental institution [2]. 

 

Like D. H. Lawrence, whom they quote, Deleuze and Guattari argue that the aim of any process is the consummation thereof: "The process should work to a completion, not to some horror of intensification and extremity wherein the soul and body ultimately perish." [3]  

 

It's concerning that many who choose to experiment with gender identity and transitioning seem to fall into this trap of pushing a process into a goal, which might help explain why the rates for suicide, self-harm, and depression amongst the trans community in the UK make for grim reading [4].  

 

Ultimately, making a transition (or a becoming of any kind) involves crossing a threshold to the unknown. And if that promises a new life, or a completely different state of being, so too is it to flirt with death. 

 

In other words, there is a certain negativity inscribed within the process of transitioning. It's not simply fun and games; unlike gender bending, which involves dressing up and challenging norms and stereotypes by highlighting the performative character of gender and is usually free from any dysmorphia or concerns about which body one has been born into [5]. 

 

So, to those who are determined to transition, I would issue a gentle word of caution. But of course, who am I to advise anyone on anything; I'm not a trans individal, don't know any trans people, and my knowledge of this topic has mostly been shaped by my taste in films, pop music, and French philosophy ...    

 

 

Notes

 

[1] It should be pointed out that transitioning cannot simply be conflated with sex reassignment surgery. Many individuals with gender dysphoria who choose to transition, don't go under the knife and think of transitioning in more holistic terms, involving mental and social factors and not just physical changes.

 

[2] Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane, (University of Minnesota Press, 1983), p. 5.

[3] D. H. Lawrence, Aaron's Rod, ed. Mara Kalnins, (Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 166.

[4] According to the Stonewall website, 48% of trans people in Britain have attempted suicide at least once and 84% have thought about it; more than half (55%) have been clinically diagnosed with depression at some point.

[5] Note that I'm not dismissing the importance of gender bending. In fact, I think crossdressers, drag queens, and androgynous looking pop stars play a vital role in helping us to better understand issues around the cultural construction of gender identity. 

      I discuss this in chapter four of Philosophy on the Catwalk (2011), where I write in praise of those who playfully separate the signs of sex from biological being and refuse any destiny that rests upon anatomical fact; i.e., those who enact the Wildean teaching that the first duty in life is to be as artificial as possible. 

      See also my short post from December 2012 entitled 'Life's a Drag': click here.

 

 

Amethyst: Brief Reflections on My Birthstone and Dionysian Philosophy

All things at the end of time become amethyst ...

 

Amethyst is a violet-coloured variety of quartz; i.e., a hard crystalline mineral made from silica (SiO2). It owes its beauty - as do most things - to its imperfections; namely, impurities of iron and the presence of other trace elements, including, if Remy Belleau is to be believed, a few drops of sacred wine [1].

 

It's also, according to astrologers, my birthstone. Which is somewhat awkward for a Dionysian philosopher, as the English name derives from the Hellenistic Greek term amethystos [αμέθυστος], meaning unintoxicated (a reference to the belief that wearing the semi-precious stone protected its owner from drunkenness). 

 

However, it's important to remember that even Nietzsche - the major disciple of Dionynsus in the modern world - doesn't approve of piss-heads, placing alcohol alongside Christian morality as one of the two great European narcotics and who, for the most part, drank only water, preferring as he did to keep both a clear-head and a cool-head (as I do).

 

Ultimately, whilst Nietzsche admired the transfiguring power of intoxication, he strongly recommended that all spiritual natures abstain from alcohol and he didn't sacrifice human reason in the name of a wild irrationalism. Throughout his writings, cognitive activity is itself conceived as a drive of some kind, or even a form of passion; the will to make an intrinsically chaotic world intelligible and thus a world we might inhabit with a degree of security. 

 

And, for Nietzsche, whilst not denying the ecstatic element of the Dionysian experience, the god speaks differently to him: he speaks of this world (as the only world); of love as an earthly reality and of the eternal delight of existence in all of its aspects (even the most terrible) [2].

 

 

Notes 

 

[1] In his poem L'Amethyste, ou les Amours de Bacchus et d'Amethyste, 16th-century French poet Remy Belleau invents a myth in which Bacchus - the Roman version of Dionysus - was pursuing a maiden named Amethyste, who refused his affections and called on Diana to safeguard her chastity. This the goddess did by transforming Amethyste into a pure white gemstone. Impressed by the girl's determination to remain chaste, Bacchus pours wine over her new mineral form as an offering, thereby staining the crystal purple.  

 

[2] In a note from 1888, for example, Nietzsche writes: 

 

"Philosophy, as I have hitherto understood and lived it, is a voluntary quest for even the most detested and notorious sides of existence. [...] Such an experimental philosophy [...] wants [...] a Dionysian affirmation of the world as it is, without subtraction, exception, or selection - it wants the eternal circulation: the same things, the same logic and illogic of entanglements. The highest state a philosopher can attain: to stand in a Dionysian relationship to existence - my formula for this is amor fati."

 

See The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale, ed. Walter Kaufmann, (Vintage Books, 1968), Book Four, Pt. II, §1041, p. 536.