{"id":77682,"date":"2017-12-27T10:47:33","date_gmt":"2017-12-27T10:47:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2017\/12\/27\/la-bureaucratie-de-la-passion\/"},"modified":"2017-12-27T10:47:33","modified_gmt":"2017-12-27T10:47:33","slug":"la-bureaucratie-de-la-passion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2017\/12\/27\/la-bureaucratie-de-la-passion\/","title":{"rendered":"La bureaucratie de la passion"},"content":{"rendered":"

La bureaucratie de la passion<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Imaginez Gable-Reth Butler saisissant avec cette sorte de passion frustr\u00e9e mais si sinc\u00e8re qui l’habitait, Leigh-Scarlett O’Hara, secr\u00e8tement amoureuse de lui malgr\u00e9 son orgueil, pour lui donner ce baiser passionn\u00e9 qu’elle ne lui refuse pas vraiment, qui figure sur toutes les affiches de Gone With the Wind<\/em>, qui pr\u00e9lude \u00e0 une \u00e9treinte tout aussi passionn\u00e9e entre tous les deux ; et l’\u00e9motion romantique (soyons prudes) du public monte et se noue, – quand soudain s’\u00e9l\u00e8ve une voix m\u00e9tallique, neutre, pr\u00e9cise comme le couperet d’une guillotine<\/strong> :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Hol\u00e0 ! Attendez donc vous deux… Que comptez-vous faire ? Voici un contrat, \u00e0 signer par tous les deux, de consentement mutuel… Pr\u00e9cisez vos intentions communes, sur lesquelles vous \u00eatre d’accord : axe sexuel complet ou pas ? Avec force et brutalit\u00e9 ou avec douceur et tendresse ? P\u00e9n\u00e9tration anale faisant l’accord des deux, ou bien pas du tout ? Est-il question d’une fellation ou pas ? Vous cochez l’option choisie… Vos deux signatures sont n\u00e9cessaires, le document en double exemplaire, avec en plus une photographie actant la signature dans une entente commune … Ah, la pr\u00e9sence d’un notaire n’est pas n\u00e9cessaire car cela est fait en toute libert\u00e9 et sans contrainte bureaucratique… Et maintenant, allez-y, jouissez de votre plaisir commun et partag\u00e9, \u00e9galitaire et postmoderne ! »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Ainsi le philosophe iek, dans un long article pour RT<\/a>, pr\u00e9cise-t-il \u00e0 quelles conditions bureaucratiques extr\u00eames<\/strong> pourrait aboutir l’actuel mouvement d\u00e9clench\u00e9 par la \u00ab\u00a0crise sexuelle\u00a0\u00bb. Indirectement et peut-\u00eatre m\u00eame involontairement, – s’il n’a pas lu le texte, – il r\u00e9agit ou r\u00e9pond \u00e0 la puissante affirmation f\u00e9ministe concernant ce que Jodie Foster<\/a> d\u00e9signe comme la n\u00e9cessaire r\u00e9\u00e9ducation (des hommes) pour parvenir \u00e0 une compr\u00e9hension et \u00e0 une op\u00e9rationnalisation s\u00e9rieuse du \u00ab\u00a0consentement\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>, pour faire \u00e9chec aux harc\u00e8lements, contraintes et agressions sexuelles dont les femmes sont les victimes \u00e9pouvantables de la part des hommes, depuis la nuit des temps.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Le texte de iek n’est nullement caricatural m\u00eame s’il semble l’\u00eatre. Il examine le probl\u00e8me ainsi pos\u00e9 avec s\u00e9rieux, mesure, et selon des donn\u00e9es objectives que nul ne peut vraiment contester<\/strong>. Tout ce que l’on peut dire de sp\u00e9culatif \u00e0 son \u00e9gard est qu’il fait une projection sur l’avenir, qu’on jugerait en temps normal tr\u00e8s audacieuse et lointaine jusqu’\u00e0 la consid\u00e9rer comme une fiction (science-fiction, ou soci\u00e9tal-fiction, ou sexe-fiction). Mais si l’on se r\u00e9f\u00e8re \u00e0 la foudroyante rapidit\u00e9 avec laquelle \u00e9voluent ces choses des relations entre les deux genres, comme dans tous les autres domaines y compris extra-sexuels, par les temps extr\u00eamement anormaux que nous vivons, et qui courent, et qui courent, – la possibilit\u00e9 \u00e9voqu\u00e9e par iek pourrait s’av\u00e9rer assez proche, dans tous les cas sous la forme de propositions pressantes venues de milieux exacerb\u00e9s<\/strong>…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Lisez le texte, où, pour pousser encore plus vers l’absurde, le philosophe introduit des notions freudiennes pour distinguer la personnalit\u00e9 entre Ego<\/em>, SuperEgo<\/em>, Id<\/a> <\/em>(pour \u00ab\u00a0identification\u00a0\u00bb, repr\u00e9sentant la dimension de d\u00e9sir et de passion par rapport aux normes morales du sujet : « le processus par lequel une personne se transforme, de fa\u00e7on provisoire ou permanente, en assimilant un trait ou un attribut, partiel ou total, d’une autre personne<\/em> », – et, dans ce cas, le d\u00e9sir pour une autre personne). Et iek observe : « D\u00e8s lors, pour poser le cas jusqu’\u00e0 l’absurde, le contrat ne devrait-il pas \u00eatre sign\u00e9 \u00e0 la fois par l’Ego, le SuperEgo et l’Id de chacune des parties, de fa\u00e7on \u00e0 ce que sa compl\u00e8te validit\u00e9 soit \u00e9tabli seulement si les trois parties disent \u00ab\u00a0OUI\u00a0\u00bb ?<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Bien, tout cela et pour pousser la r\u00e9flexion jusqu’\u00e0 son port naturel, qui est naturellement situ\u00e9 en Absurdie. Il ne faut pas oublier d’avoir \u00e0 l’esprit que iek ne choisit pas l\u00e0 un cas particulier, un appendice monstrueux d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 qui fonctionne par ailleurs normalement. Au contraire, le cas choisi, notamment parce qu’il est spectaculaire, n’en est pas moins exemplaire d’une dynamique qui ne cesse de se d\u00e9velopper \u00e0 une vitesse extr\u00eame<\/strong> ; dans tous les domaines, tous marqu\u00e9s par le plus impitoyable extr\u00e9misme que l’esprit conformisme courant tenue sous la surveillance polici\u00e8re des l\u00e9gions hyst\u00e9riques qui dictent les conditions des temps nouveaux ne peut qu’approuver avec empressement, effectivement ce m\u00eame impitiyable extr\u00e9misme paroxystique r\u00e8gne<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Ce que d\u00e9crit iek peut se retrouver dans les jugements humanitaires, dans les conceptions psychologiques, dans les projections de transformation du transhumanisme, dans la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 des m\u00e9langes de population par une migration qu’on croirait parfois forc\u00e9e, dans la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d’une productivit\u00e9 furieuse qui ravage l’environnement du monde, dans la c\u00e9l\u00e9bration des fortunes qui ne cessent de grandir aux d\u00e9pens d’une pauvret\u00e9 qui ne cesse de s’\u00e9largir, dans l’acculturation acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9e des esprits<\/strong> pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e comme une n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 culturelle fondamentale presque heureuse, par la m\u00e9diocr\u00e9tinisation heureuse (m\u00e9diocrit\u00e9 + cr\u00e9tinisme = bonheur) du sapiens <\/em>du tout-venant arc-en-ciel<\/strong>, <\/em>etc. Ce que d\u00e9crit iek est un exemple dans un domaine particulier de ce \u00e0 quoi m\u00e8ne le grand mouvement en cours dans tous les domaines.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Somme toute, on appr\u00e9ciera l’int\u00e9r\u00eat de ce texte, où la logique des choses postmodernes<\/strong> est pouss\u00e9e \u00e0 son terme et encore dans un des domaines les plus sensibles des relations entre les gens, et domaine affectif puissant, pour bien nous faire mesurer s’il en \u00e9tait encore besoin l’absurdit\u00e9 et la folie qui, pareillement, caract\u00e9risent l’\u00e9volution actuelle<\/strong>. Il n’est pas du tout assur\u00e9 que iek, qui ait un philosophe qui reste largement marqu\u00e9 par le marxisme, ait voulu mettre en cause<\/strong> tous les aspects de la pouss\u00e9e postmoderniste, soci\u00e9tale, etc.<\/strong>, que nous connaissons, mais c’est incontestablement \u00e0 cela qu’il arrive<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Rien ne peut \u00eatre s\u00e9par\u00e9 du tout. Le mouvement est g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, il affecte tous les domaines et la logique postmoderne n\u00e9e du Syst\u00e8me dont on sait combien il est un Tout dominant et englobant notre \u00e9poque. Il est bon que l’un ou l’autre, – iek en l’occurrence, – d\u00e9taille dans ses moindres recoins les cons\u00e9quences logiques que fait naître la m\u00eame dynamique d\u00e9constructrice que nous mettons en branle sans discontinuer, sans aucun frein, sans souci des effets, des cons\u00e9quences et des perspectives, saisis par une fi\u00e8vre extraordinaire, emport\u00e9s par la folie de la pseudo-toute puissance humaine. Nous sommes arriv\u00e9s, non pas \u00e0 la confrontation d’id\u00e9ologies, de principes, etc., mais bien au-del\u00e0, nous sommes arriv\u00e9s \u00e0 la confrontation des l\u00e9gions modernistes avec le monde lui-m\u00eame<\/strong>. Le spectacle ne sera pas sans int\u00e9r\u00eat, il l’est d\u00e9j\u00e0 d’ailleurs.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

_________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Political correctness could destroy passion<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

In the West, at least, everyone has become massively aware of the extent of coercion and exploitation in sexual relations.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

However, we should bear in mind also the (no less significant) fact that millions of people on a daily basis flirt and play the game of seduction, with the clear aim of finding a partner for making love. The result of the modern Western culture is that both sexes are expected to play an active role in this game.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

When women dress provocatively to attract the male gaze or when they \u00ab\u00a0objectify\u00a0\u00bb themselves to seduce them, they don’t do it offering themselves as passive objects: instead they are the active agents of their own \u00ab\u00a0objectification,\u00a0\u00bb manipulating men, playing ambiguous games, including reserving the full right to step out of the game at any moment even if, to the male gaze, this appears in contradiction with previous \u00ab\u00a0signals.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

This freedom women enjoy bothers all kinds of fundamentalists, from Muslims who recently prohibited women touching and playing with bananas and other fruit which resembles the penis to our own ordinary male chauvinist who explodes in violence against a woman who first \u00ab\u00a0provokes\u00a0\u00bb him and then rejects his advances.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Female sexual liberation is not just a puritan withdrawal from being \u00ab\u00a0objectivized\u00a0\u00bb (as a sexual object for men) but the right to actively play with self-objectivization, offering herself and withdrawing at will. But will it be still possible to proclaim these simple facts, or will the politically-correct pressure compel us to accompany all these games with some formal-legal proclamation (of consensuality, etc.)?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

A recent, politically-correct idea is the so-called \u00ab\u00a0Consent Conscious Kit,\u00a0\u00bb currently on sale in the US: a small bag with a condom, a pen, some breath mints, and a simple contract stating that both participants freely consent to a shared sexual act. The suggestion is that a couple ready to have sex either takes a photo holding in their hands the contract, or that they both date and sign it.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Yet, although the \u00ab\u00a0Consent Conscious Kit\u00a0\u00bb addresses a very real problem, it does it in a way which is not only silly but directly counter-productive – and why is that?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The underlying idea is how a sex act, if it to be cleansed of any suspicion of coercion, has to be declared, in advance, as a freely-made conscious decision of both participants – to put it in Lacanian terms, it has to be registered by the big Other, and inscribed into the symbolic order.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

As such, the \u00ab\u00a0Consent Conscious Kit\u00a0\u00bb is just an extreme expression of an attitude that grows all around the US – for example, the state of California passed a law requiring all colleges that accept state funding to adopt policies requiring their students to obtain affirmative consent — which it defines as \u00ab\u00a0affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity\u00a0\u00bb that is \u00ab\u00a0ongoing\u00a0\u00bb and not given when too drunk, before engaging in sexual activity, or else risk punishment for sexual assault.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement\u00a0\u00bb – by whom? The first thing to do here is to mobilize the Freudian triad of Ego, Superego, and Id (in a simplified version: my conscious self-awareness, the agency of moral responsibility enforcing norms on me, and my deepest half-disavowed passions).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

What if there is a conflict between the three? If, under the pressure of the Superego, my Ego say NO, but my Id resists and clings to the denied desire? Or (a much more interesting case) the opposite: I say YES to the sexual invitation, surrendering to my Id passion, but in the midst of performing the act, my Superego triggers an unbearable guilt feeling?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Thus, to bring things to the absurd, should the contract be signed by the Ego, Superego, and Id of each party, so that it is valid only if all three say YES? Plus, what if the male partner also uses his contractual right to step back and cancel the agreement at any moment in the sexual activity? Imagine that, after obtaining the woman’s consent, when the prospective lovers find themselves naked in bed, some tiny bodily detail (an unpleasant sound like a vulgar belching) dispels the erotic charm and makes the man withdraw? Is this not in itself an extreme humiliation for the woman?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The ideology that sustains this promotion of \u00ab\u00a0sexual respect\u00a0\u00bb deserves a closer look. The basic formula is: \u00ab\u00a0Yes means yes!\u00a0\u00bb – it has to be an explicit yes, not just the absence of a no. \u00ab\u00a0No no\u00a0\u00bb does not automatically amount to a \u00ab\u00a0yes\u00a0\u00bb: because if a woman who is being seduced does not actively resist it, this still leaves the space open for different forms of coercion.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Here, however, problems multiply: what if a woman passionately desires it but is too embarrassed to openly declare it? What if, for both partners, ironically playing coercion is part of the erotic game? And a yes to what, precisely, to what types of sexual activity, is a declared yes? Should then the contract form be more detailed, so that the principal consent is specified: a yes to vaginal but not anal intercourse, a yes to fellatio but not swallowing the sperm, a yes to light spanking but not harsh blows, etc.etc.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

One can easily imagine a long bureaucratic negotiation, which can kill all desire for the act, but it can also get libidinally invested on its own. These problems are far from secondary, they concern the very core of erotic interplay from which one cannot withdraw into a neutral position and declare one’s readiness (or unreadiness) to do it: every such act is part of the interplay and either de-eroticizes the situation or gets eroticized on its own.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The \u00ab\u00a0yes means yes’ sexual rule is an exemplary case of the narcissistic notion of subjectivity that predominates today. A subject is experienced as something vulnerable, something that has to be protected by a complex set of rules, warned in advance about all possible intrusions that may disturb him\/her.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Remember how, upon its release, ET was prohibited in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark: because it’s non-sympathetic portrayal of adults was considered dangerous for relations between children and their parents. (An ingenious detail confirms this accusation: in the first 10 minutes of the film, all adults are seen only below their belts, like the adults in cartoons who threaten Tom and Jerry…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

From today’s perspective, we can see this prohibition as an early sign of the politically-correct obsession with protecting individuals from any experience that may hurt them in any way. And the list can go on indefinitely – recall the proposal to digitally delete smoking from Hollywood classics…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Yes, sex is traversed by power games, violent obscenities, etc., but the difficult thing to admit is that it’s inherent to it. Some perspicuous observers have already noticed how the only form of sexual relation that fully meets the politically correct criteria would have been a contract drawn between sadomasochist partners.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Thus, the rise of Political Correctness and the rise of violence are two sides of the same coin: insofar as the basic premise of Political Correctness is the reduction of sexuality to contractual mutual consent. And the French linguist Jean-Claude Milner was right to point out how the anti-harassment movement unavoidably reaches its climax in contracts which stipulate extreme forms of sadomasochist sex (treating a person like a dog on a collar, slave trading, torture, up to consented killing).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In such forms of consensual slavery, the market freedom of the contract negates itself: and slave trade becomes the ultimate assertion of freedom. It is as if Jacques Lacan’s motif \u00ab\u00a0Kant with Sade\u00a0\u00bb (Marquis de Sade’s brutal hedonism as the truth of Kant’s rigorous ethics) becomes reality in an unexpected way. But, before we dismiss this motif as just a provocative paradox, we should reflect upon how this paradox is at work in our social reality itself.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Slavoj iek<\/h4><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La bureaucratie de la passion Imaginez Gable-Reth Butler saisissant avec cette sorte de passion frustr\u00e9e mais si sinc\u00e8re qui l’habitait, Leigh-Scarlett O’Hara, secr\u00e8tement amoureuse de lui malgr\u00e9 son orgueil, pour lui donner ce baiser passionn\u00e9 qu’elle ne lui refuse pas vraiment, qui figure sur toutes les affiches de Gone With the Wind, qui pr\u00e9lude \u00e0… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[10643,3837,4020,17996,17981,13135,3252,12808,17995],"class_list":["post-77682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-acte","tag-feminisme","tag-folie","tag-formulaire","tag-harcelement","tag-lgbtq","tag-postmoderne","tag-sexuel","tag-iek"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77682","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77682\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}