Martha Carter
The following
pages will explore the philosophy of Georges Bataille, who wrote a book called Erotism:
Death and Sensuality. This book
explores the relationships between the sacred world of violence and the profane
world of taboo - transgression, limits, deaths… Betwixt these suspended worlds,
there is discontinuity, ambiguity, and continuity – this is eroticism. In the following, I will show how this ties
in with the human condition and the sacred.
I will explore the human condition and its relationship to life and
death; how taboo originated and how it affects all humans, whether of the past
or present; the relationship of transgression to taboo; and how our perception
of death has created a variety of taboos and rules declaring what is
appropriate. The discussion of taboos
surrounding death will include taboos on corpses, burial, murder, war, cruelty,
hunting, and cannibalism.
By
examining our ‘human condition’, we realize that our relationship to one
another as individuals is one of distinctness.
I find that I am not like another being in all ways. I am even different from my parents, although
through their reproductive act I was formed.
I find myself distinct from every person. Yet all humans, as well as other creatures or
beings, have certain similarities within their individual, distinct lives, such
as the experience of their own individual birth and individual death that
cannot be shared by any other person.
Each one of these experiences is one that must be faced alone. Other people can witness it and even have it
dramatically affect their lives, but it is still a solitary journey that only
you, alone, can carry the weight and burdens of. This relationship of an individual to other
individuals is of discontinuity.
All reproductive beings are
discontinuous. Reproduction, in fact,
implies this discontinuity. The
discontinuity between beings that reproduce occurs differently between asexual
and sexual beings. Asexual beings
reproduce by one individual being dividing to become two beings. The first one has ceased to exist, although
its death is different from ours. It
‘disappears’ whereas we leave a corpse.
The death of the first individual being represents its discontinuity
with other beings. However, there is a
moment of continuity in asexual reproduction as the one being ‘splits’ into the
two beings. This continuity connects
this individual being with the entire flow of life or existence. Instead of feeling disconnected as an
individual, the being is briefly connected.
The resulting two beings are discontinuous beings arising from that
moment of continuity. In sexually
reproducing beings, continuity is different in that death is not a part of the
process of reproduction; reproducing beings do continue to live after
reproduction. Sexual reproduction
differs from asexual reproduction in that two cells (i.e., the sperm and ovum)
unite to form a new cell. There is a
moment of continuity in the uniting of the two cells, but the moment is over
once both cells cease to exist apart from one another. The new cell continues the reproductive
process by dividing (as in asexual reproduction). Each cell existing before the division no longer
exists after dividing; each single one is discontinuous. Sexual reproduction has produced a being that
is discontinuous from all other beings, but through the reproductive act, will
share in the continuity of all life in general.
Although animals and humans share
the same relationship of continuity and discontinuity with the world, animals
do not have the ‘sense of inner experience’ that humans have. Animals do not consider their individual
discontinuous life within the continuity of all life. The actual transition between animals and
humans, where the inner experience is felt, is unclear. Bataille supposes that it arose when humans
began to use the tools they created for survival in order to work. Around this time, “restrictions known as
taboos” probably arose (30). The
earliest taboos most likely surrounded death, which is evidenced through the
findings of ancient burial sites. Other
taboos, such as sexual taboos, arose later.
However, there is less evidence to guess when sexual taboos arose, for
traces such as bones are not left behind to signify this transition.
The world
of work and reason that humans created using tools contrasts the world of
violence that was partially left behind (40).
This violence is a part of nature, which is shown through her destructive
and chaotic forces of decomposition, birth, and death. Although humans may build a world where work
and reason prevail, giving a sense of established order, there always remains
this “undercurrent of violence” (40).
Humans cannot escape these violent forces, for reason will not help one
to escape death. The created taboos for
work are attempting to exclude the violence of the world from the lives of
humans (42).
Taboo and transgression are
essentially contradictory experiences (35).
Bataille says that the subjects of taboos are sacred, but the taboo
itself is a negative response to it. A
person will fear what is sacred and be awed by it at the same time—they are
feeling two contradictory urges, to either flee the situation or to be drawn in
to it. These urges are reflected as
taboo and transgression. When we
experience taboo, we are feeling the urge to obey certain rules or laws. When we experience transgression, we are
violating those rules or laws. Most
often, the taboo does not come only from society or other external
sources. It is something that the
individual has placed limits on personally within their own being. Bataille states that “[t]he profane world is
the world of taboos. The sacred world
depends on limited acts of transgression.
It is the world of celebrations, sovereign rulers and
God” (67-68).
Yet, how is it that taboos can draw
us in yet drive us away from the sacred at the same time? Bataille believes that “transgression does
not deny the taboo but transcends it and completes it” (63) - which would
explain why we may feel the two contradictory urges at once. However, for him, taboos are illogical. He says that any subject or taboo will give
rise to an opposite view, its transgression.
Taboos are eventually transgressed because they naturally incline a
person to think of transgressing them.
Although we are expected to obey
taboos, certain amounts or degrees of transgression is permitted. Yet, even transgressing will have certain
rules, especially in specific situations.
Rarely is it acceptable to transgress with absolutely no limits. We find these rules for transgressing
surrounding the work situation. Humans
use reason and work in an attempt to escape the violence of life. Our lives of reason and work have us
attempting to ‘obey’ taboos and other rules and regulations, but we continually
find ourselves succumbing “to stirrings within” ourselves that we “cannot bring
to heel” (40). These stirrings would be
the urges to transgress the taboos we initiated ourselves. While working, we are expected to repress
these drives and behaviors, so that we will remain within a certain rational
mind-frame to allow “productive efficiency” balanced with effort (41). The taboos are structured so that our work
time is spent doing what is necessary for productive work—no one is to
transgress any of the taboos required at work.
During sacred days or festivities,
however, one is expected to not follow the same taboos that would be followed
at work. A person resists all urges to
transgress during work time, so that the built up urges may be released during
a time where taboo restriction is not as constricting. These ‘times’, or sacred festivities, are
scheduled regularly enough so that too much ‘urge’ to transgress will not accumulate,
which may result in transgression during work time that is not as controlled,
that may go beyond the rules of transgression allowed during the sacred
time. A release, as such, will disrupt
the work time and economic benefits.
Bataille writes that religion is responsible for the breaking of taboo,
where spiritual lives celebrate through transgression (69). This allowance of transgression for religion
may be why many religious ceremonies are held on days that most people do not
work. This way, the workers will return
to work ready to focus on keeping taboo.
We have
seen how allowing limited transgression, or transgression with rules, can help
to balance other areas of life, such as religion and work. However, transgression that is permitted to exist
to a limited degree often leads to a surge of violence beyond those rules. The surge of violent transgression beyond the
rules is usually still limited in many ways.
But, what circumstances actually lead to unlimited transgression, where one goes well beyond the rules? This unlimited transgression may happen when
a ruler of a people, or tribe, who is considered sacred
dies—this loss of what is sacred may lead to disruption in the social and
natural lives of the tribe. They may no
longer feel obligated to follow the rules of ritual and social
organization—they break any rule that is normally considered taboo. They commit sacrilege by violating what is
sacred. The taboos, or rules, which
humans have placed on themselves were intended to
confine the violence within themselves and the world. Yet, the taboos do not stop the violence of
the world. All ‘suppressed urges’ of
violence resurface when the humans realize that the world will continue to be
violent toward them. They are let loose
into the world. Yet, it is not entirely limitless—the sacrilege must
end when the bones of the leader are dry, when the violence of decomposition is
over.
When
ancient humans created taboos on death and the dead, death must have been
something that disturbed them (43). The
taboos partly were placed to separate themselves from the world of violence, a
disordered world they did not understand.
When they saw a corpse, they did not understand why the person, now a
tormenting object, did not continue existing as they did before death. The corpse is found to torment the living
others because it represents each single person’s own individual destiny, for
each person will have to face his or her own death. Yet, it also “bears witness to a violence
which destroys not one man alone but all men in the end” (44). They fear and awe the corpse simultaneously.
Burial of
the corpse was probably initiated in order to stop more violence from
afflicting the corpse after the violence of death had already struck it—especially
when the people burying the corpse knew the person when he or she was
living. Violence that may afflict the
corpse would include wild animals eating it or worms and maggots helping to
decompose it. Both of these are sights
hard to witness, for it is difficult not to place oneself in the position of
the corpse. Yet, burial was also
probably initiated not only to protect the dead body from violence, but also to
protect the living from the corpse. The
dead body may have been seen as contagious, something that needed to be
separated from the living, from whom one would ‘catch’ death (46) Ideas such as this
probably arose from decomposition, something that nauseated the living and
reminded them of their own destiny.
Today, we do not worry about ‘catching’ death, but the sight of a dead
or decomposing body still causes us to recoil.
Taboos on
murder, such as “Thou shalt not kill”, were established long ago, but are still
part of the taboos we follow today. A
taboo such as this was probably started within a community that used work to
separate the community from the disordered, violent world. Whenever death occurred, it was always blamed
on violence. With murder and death,
therefore, the community would want to “run away from death and hide from the
forces that have been unleashed”, and try to stop the forces “which have
overpowered the dead man” from being loosed in themselves (47). The separation from violence, that work and
reason had established, was felt to be weak whenever an event as powerful as a
murder took place. The entire structure
of ‘separateness’ which they had constructed could not withstand that pressure,
so taboos were instilled in order to make the community feel safe from violence
at least from within their own community.
Violence coming from without, however, could not be controlled as
easily. For Bataille, the taboo “Thou
shalt not kill” is illogical when it is placed within the context of
religion. He is humored by the fact that
you can hear this commandment with the blessing of an army. He argues that would not the God of the New
Testament disapprove of war? Are we
supposed to live our lives by what the commandment says, by banning war and ending
military regimes, or are we supposed to continue fighting and consider it false?
To have a
taboo such as “Thou shalt not kill”, and to condone certain forms of killing,
such as duels, feuds, and war, may seem confusing and conflicting. The taboos on murder are limiting but do not
rule out the entire potential behavior. The taboo can be violated according to
certain rules. Violation of taboo is
allowed in the duels, feuds, and war, because all of these are organized with
precision. The taboo “Thou shalt not
kill” does not include killings in wartime or other community organized
killings. Outright murder, on the other
hand, is criminal. “Murder
implies that the taboo is either not known or not heeded” (72). Bataille claims that we do have the desire to
kill.
Violence,
however, does not oppose war (which is organized violence). Bataille believes that without the taboo on
murder, war would not even be thinkable as to happen. Animals, for instance, do not place taboos on
murder. They also do not have organized
war. Communities are responsible for the
organization of war—it is based on collective aggressive urges. However, this violence is not considered the
same as animal violence. The organized
transgression and the taboo together make social life. Transgressions complement and are expected
from the taboos.
The taboos
on killing developed over time. First,
there were taboos on killing other animals, which was seen as the same as
killing a human. Then, there were taboos
on the killing of humans, which later became formalized in war. In earliest
times, man saw himself as like larger animals—so to hunt and kill an animal was
to transgress. (Bataille says that
murder of ‘fellow man’ was unheard of when humans and animals were
closest. Although animals have no taboos
about killing one of their kind, it is also
rare.) This taboo is related to work, in
that hunting could only be done after the tools or weapons were made to do
it. Although hunting is under taboo, it
is not forbidden. Hunting is done by
adhering to the laws surrounding the taboo.
Yet, after the hunt, the man must atone for his transgression, or make
amends for his wrongdoings when he killed the animal. For Bataille, the ancient cave paintings are
the expiation of the animal’s death (not the magical expressions of hope some
people like to believe). By completing
the painting, the man could return into the normal profane world. These acts of expiation point to a more
important position of religion in the lives of ancient humans.
There
existed some rules for primitive people for the declaration of war, which included
naming the hostile group and declaring the hostilities before combat. Of course, one group would not have to warn
the others that they were going to attack, in order to take them by surprise,
but, ‘in the spirit of transgression’ (76), warnings were used. Today’s military and style of war is
different from that of ancient peoples.
Ours is calculated and structured so that the least number of losses
(lives) possible occurs. The earlier
spirit of war was different in that it was ritualistic. The warriors used the same feelings as those
used in ceremonial rites. There were
chivalrous customs, where everyone followed the rules. When calculated action arose as part of war,
it caused the rules to not be followed and the warriors to lose their chivalry. War then became a ‘pitiless struggle’, for
one side is trying to destroy the other’s forces. Certain rules or conditions have been laid
down, for which warring countries must follow today, but “once the frenzy was
loosed it knew no bounds” (78).
War is
different from animal violence in the cruelty of the massacre of the fight and
the torture of the prisoners. The
torture of prisoners is certainly a human cruelty. There are cases where men, women, children,
and babies have been tied together in groups, each one bound at wrist carrying
something heavy, then slowly starved to death.
If need be, they were slaughtered “to prevent recapture” if their troops
should disperse (78). Starvation reduces
the prisoner to just a skeleton before death finally releases him or her. In some places, the wounded prisoners are not
given medical attention, and those that are not intended to be kept for slavery
are kept half starved, so that they remain weak, which helps limit the amount
of resistance the captors receive. Other
places would mutilate their victims of all ages and either sex, use the
prisoners to give ‘torturing practice’ to young tribe members, or place the
prisoners in ovens to invoke laughter.
Cruelty,
such as that used in wartime, is a form of violence. It is premeditated, intended, and determined
in an attempt to escape taboo by transgressing it. War is not unleashed in the limitlessness of
having no rules—the warriors do not turn on one another and cannibalism rarely
takes place. Today’s style of organized
war does not allow the transgression that primitive war did. War today is a “dismal aberration geared to
political ends” (80).
Bataille
states “that the taboo surrounding the dead has no complementary desire running
counter to the revulsion” (71). In other
words, we find no attraction to the dead body that will draw us in towards
it—we only sense the revulsion that drives us away. Most other taboos have two countering desires
or emotions that will pull us in either direction. Any cases of where human flesh is eaten are
not done in the same sense that an animal may eat flesh. The flesh is not objectified as ‘butcher’s meat’, rather, it is treated as something sacred and as part
of a ritual. It is sacred in that it is
forbidden. The desire to eat human
flesh, or cannibalism, is from its prohibition—not the actual flesh as good
food. (Example of
‘forbidden fruit’.)
Epilogue
The taboos
that have formed over the history of humans have redefined the behavior of men
and women. No longer do most humans
respond to the world of nature with impulsive violence. Most contemplate their
actions to see if doing them would go against any prescribed taboos, whether
they come from the individual himself or herself, or from the community. These efforts to not break taboo seem to hold
the society or community together for various purposes. However, the very root of our being comes
from the violence that our taboos are trying to escape from. We are not always able to remain true to our
taboos all of the time. We allow
a limited amount of transgression during certain situations to compensate for
the building urge to return to the violence we came from, to reunite with the
continuity of life that we seem to only experience during brief moments of
life—including birth, death, and erotic sexual activity. Our human condition to be able to sense our
discontinuity never allows us to join the continuous flow of existence. Since we are not fully able to escape our
violent roots, our reason and work has caused us to overlook what is really
sacred in life. We lose what once used
to be spiritual and ritualistic to what is now calculated and organized. We will never reunite with the sacred if we
continue to use taboos to escape what we fear, for what we fear is simply a
misunderstanding of the sacred.
Bataille,
Georges. Erotism: Death and
Sensuality,