What if Bataille, in thinking about continuity, is in fact speaking of God, but does not know it, or can not name it, because for him the expressions available to label something 'God' or 'religion' are too steeped in anti-clericalism? He did, after all, consider priesthood before abandoning it.
*
"Not every woman is a potential prostitute, but prostitution is the logical conclusion of the feminine attitude. In so far as she is attractive, woman is prey to men's desire." - Erotism, trans. Mary Dalwood, p. 131.
I can imagine Bataille being reclaimed from a position inflected by contemporary gender theory--i.e., 'the feminine attitude' as a performative register to which certain gendered subjects are variously assigned, compelled, and volunteer. But I don't think I'm convinced that this is the spirit in which he means his comments on prostitution, or more broadly, on gender or sexuality or eroticism.
"Beauty that denies the animal and awakes desire finishes up by exasperating desire and exalting the animal parts." - Erotism, p. 144
Bataille seems to me to be banking on the rhetorical power of certain conventions to be his counterweight, or his canvas, from which he works as in relief. But what if 'beauty' doesn't deny the animal? What if it isn't the problem he presumes? I understand what he's saying; at least I think I do. The "animalistic" suggestion of genitalia is the thing disavowed by beauty, which sparks desire, but in trying to reach that object of desire, the "animal" is what ultimately counts. I'm uneasy about this, however ... I think Bataille gets so many things right, he is a thinker in some ways so close to me (or I feel close to him), and yet I suspect he's in the negative.
No comments:
Post a Comment