Скачать книгу

in us is actually disappointed in the sexual act, and specifically in the tyranny of the genital phase.”[9] It is a deeply narcissistic yearning that is expressed in the theory of Norman O. Brown. For him, psychoanalysis promises nothing less than the healing of the breech between body and spirit: the transformation of the man’s “I” into the bodily “I” and the resurrection of the body.[10]

      This dichotomy between body and spirit defines our culture. Dietmar Kamper and Christoph Wulf discuss this in their study of the destiny of the body throughout history and conclude that “…the historical progress of European imprinting since the Middle Ages was made possible by the distinctively Western separation of body and spirit, and then fulfilled itself as ‘spiritualisation’ of life, as rationalising, as the devaluation of human body, that is, as dematerialisation.”[11]

      2. Anonymous, 1940.

      3. Intense Pleasure, 19th century. Photograph.

      4. Erotic Wooden Sculpture, work of the Makombe in Tanzania.

      In the course of progress, the alienation of the body evolved into a hostile estrangement. The body with its variety of senses, passions, and desires was clamped into a rigid framework of commandments and taboos and was made into a simple “mute servant” through a series of repressive measures. Therefore, it needed to regain its value in an alternative way.

      This estrangement consisted of an unstoppable process of abstraction, of the ever growing estrangement of people not only from their own bodies, but also from other people’s bodies. The progress in the name of conquering nature in the past two centuries has increasingly led to the destruction of nature, and not only in the external world, but also in the inner nature of man. The dominion of people over nature led at the same time to dominion over human nature. The “love-hate relationship with the body” is the basis of what we call “culture”: “Only culture views the body as a thing that one can possess, only in the context of culture did the body first differentiate itself from the spirit – the epitome of power and authority – as an object, a dead thing, a ‘corpus.’ In man’s devaluation of his own body, nature takes vengeance on man for reducing it to the level of an object of mastery, of raw material.”[12]

      Due to the demands of the intensification of work, discipline, and increased mental control, the body becomes increasingly transformed “…from an organ of desire into an organ of production.”[13] In accordance with the principle of division of labour, industrialised societies separated work from life, learning from work, intellectual from manual work. The result has been turning the body into a machine.

      On it own, the “freedom of sexuality” changes little in this disfigurement of the inner nature of man. “Sexuality is, at least in its modern reduction to ‘sex,’ a term too narrow to correctly describe the fullness and versatility of emotions, energies, and connections,” concludes Rudolf zur Lippe.[14] In the digital age, the body completely loses its substantial meaning. Volkssport and swinger clubs represent an attempt to reanimate the estranged body.

      In the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche, the first modern philosopher of the body, that which had been despised previously was brought to the foreground. As he first observed, the destruction of humanity in the age of capitalism began with the destruction of the body. He praised the living body as the sole carrier of happiness, joy, and self-elevation,[15] and heavily criticised the view of the body characteristic of Christian morality. “All flesh is sinful,” taught Christianity, and while it praised work, it diminished the flesh to being the source of all evil. The sinful flesh had to be subjected to the ascetic spirit. Christianity was for him “the hatred of the senses, of joy in the senses, of joy itself.”[16]

      He replied to the “despisers of the body”: “There is more reason in your body than in your best wisdom.”[17] Here the spirit would be inclined to interpret itself falsely, advises Nietzsche, to escape from the body and “use it as guide… Faith in the body is better manifested than faith in the spirit,”[18] a thesis that today is being confirmed through psychosomatic research.

      Nietzsche anticipates the psychoanalytical insight that everything having to do with soul and spirit is rooted in physical experience: “‘I’ says you, and are proud of this word. But the greater thing – in which you are not willing to believe – is your body with its great wisdom; it does not say ‘I,’ but does it.”[19]

      One needs to be wary of misunderstanding when interpreting Nietzsche, especially in the face of fascist ideology which justified its barbaric conception of man through references to his writings. “Today we are tired of civilisation”: fascism used this complaint voiced by Nietzsche to support naked violence. Such violence is exactly what the progress of civilisation that Nietzsche criticises was based on from the very beginning. The liberation of people is based not on an excess of reason and enlightenment, but, rather, on its shortage, bodily reason notwithstanding. The fascist cult of the body was only the ultimate manifestation of the process that silenced the body. Those who exalted the body in the Third Reich, “…had the same affinity with killing as the lover of nature has with hunting. They viewed the body as a movable mechanism, with the joints as hinges and the flesh as the padding of the skeleton. They related with the body and worked with their limbs as if they were already separated.”[20]

      The new Man is a body-machine: his physique is mechanised, his psyche eliminated.[21] “I am not following your path, you, the despisers of the body!” was Nietzsche’s answer to such philistines. Did the “sexual revolution” liberate the body? Only to a certain degree. Indeed, what appeared to be liberation, was often nothing more than propagation of the socially mandated self-objectification and mechanisation of the genitalia. “The so-called ‘Sex Wave’ movement addresses the needs that were banned for so long from morality and from the public sphere using the technology of mechanical production and propagation, thereby degrading those needs even more.”[22] Sexuality and erotica are no longer the expression of resistance to the ongoing process of socialisation, but rather its victims.

      5. Anonymous, Tit Fuck, 1850.

      6. Images of Spring, coloured shunga, 18th century. Silk on card.

      7. David Greiner, Love Games I, 1917.

      Meanwhile, in the private world of a fetishist, the body, with its sensuality, experiences a libidinous revaluation that potentially reimburses it for what the socialisation process has taken away. This is how Eberhard Schorsch attempted to rehabilitate perversion, which he saw as a complement to an all around curtailed sensuality: “Perversions reveal the narrowness, the one-dimensionality, the amputated desire of exclusively genital, partnership-based heterosexuality.”[23] He explains:

      “Exhibitionism and voyeurism expose the restriction of sexuality produced by the introduction of intimacy and a sense of shame… Fetishism points out the narrowness of the ideology of personality and partnership as necessary for sexual fulfilment. As a result, an emotional attachment, or ‘love,’ is projected onto objects. A sadomasochistic relationship represents the possibility of unlimited, unconditional mutual love to the point of the obliteration of one’s own person, thereby showing the limits imposed

Скачать книгу


<p>9</p>

ibid. p. 47.

<p>10</p>

ibid. p. 251; sh. Auch S.Sontag, Norman Browns “Zukunft im Zeichen des Eros”, in: Kunst und Antikunst, Reinbek 1968, p. 251–257.

<p>11</p>

D.Kamper / Ch.Wulf, Die Parabel der Wiederkehr, in: D.Kamper / Ch.Wulf, Die Wiederkehr des Körpers, Frankfurt 1982, p. 12.

<p>12</p>

Max Horkheimer / Th.W.Adorno, Dialektik der Aufklärung, Frankfurt 1969, p. 247.

<p>13</p>

sh. Jan van Ussel, Sexualunterdrückung. Geschichte der Sexualfeindschaft, Reinbek 1970, p. 39.

<p>14</p>

Rudolf zur Lippe, Am eigenen Leibe. Zur Ökonomie des Lebens. Frankfurt 1978, p. 143.

<p>15</p>

sh. dazu H.Schipperges, Am Leitfaden des Leibes. Zur Anthropologie und Therapeutik Friedrich Nietzsches, Stuttgart 1975.

<p>16</p>

Friedrich Nietzsche, Werke in drei Bänden, Hg. K.Schlechta, München 1968, Bd.II, p. 1181.

<p>17</p>

ibid., Bd.II, p. 301.

<p>18</p>

ibid., Bd.III, p. 476.

<p>19</p>

ibid., Bd.II, p. 300.

<p>20</p>

Horkheimer/Adorno, a.a.O., p. 249.

<p>21</p>

sh. dazu auch K.Theweleit, Männerphantasien, Frankfurt 1978, Bd. II, p. 185.

<p>22</p>

R. zur Lippe, Anthropologie für wen? In: D.Kamper / V.Rittner (Hg.), Zur Geschichte des Körpers, München 1976, p. 94.

<p>23</p>

E.Schorsch, Sexuelle Deviationen: Ideologie, Klinik, Kritik, in: E.Schorsch/G.Schmidt, Ergebnisse der Sexualforschung, Köln 1975, p. 88.