The Appeal of Sacrifice
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ส.ค. 2020
- After a glance at the important theories of sacrifice, this talk argues for an understanding of sacrifice that views it as the source of all value. Sacrifice continues to play this role in capitalism, where is becomes secular and occurs in the form of the commodity.
I might be jumping the gun by writing this comment before I finish the video, but I think this also gives us a way to understand commodities whose price is not explained by their cost of production (Rolex watches, nice cars etc.). Those products offer us a commodity that is pure sacrifice. The car itself might be quite nice but its value can only be explained in what must be lost in order to acquire it.
"Sacrifice is nothing other than the production of sacred things." - Georges Bataille
Honestly was surprised you didn't end up bringing up Bataille at the start after Freud, he seems to be almost prefiguring much of what you explained here.
In wich book does Bataille write about it? I've read "Erotism" some time ago, but I don't remember this thesis.
@@FerdynandBardamu if i recall correctly it's in The Notion of Expenditure, but the theme of the sacred and sacrifice is present in much of his work
I put an old desk out in the curb with a free sign, after a few days of it still sitting there I changed the sign to $25. It was stollen the next day
I will use this example from now until the end of my time. Thanks for it.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Hi Todd, here is another very historical example (a small thank you for the book you've sent me).
In the newly emancipated Greece from the Ottoman empire, (early to mid 19th century), the first governor Ioannis Kapodistrias introduced to farmers the potato - which had arrived in Europe a couple of centuries earlier and had recently become popular to Ireland and France. The potato was thought as a solution to the difficult post-revolution years and so he offered freely the potatoes to farmers. The latter, however, being suspicious and conservative rejected and ignored such offer, throwing them to rubbish.
Until... Kapodistrias decided to fence the place and introduce all day and night guards who pretended to guard the warehouse in which the potatoes were stored - as if they were valuable objects. Within a week all the potatoes were stolen.
Similar introductions of the potato seem to have taken place in France and Germany by Parmadier of France and Frederick the Great of Prussia
I love these vids and that your putting so many of them out, there is a lot of ideas I've never really seen before or thought about.
I watched 4 unedited performances of Henry IV pt1 when my daughter was in it. Only now do I enjoy it, but my sacrifice of those many hours will make this enjoyment endure! So thank you both.
But at least you got to see Falstaff during your sacrifice!
Amazing Todd! You are doing absolutely great.
I'm glad I've found this videos in addition to the podcast. I try to read as much as possible but I learn better and take things in more audibly, and there is not a ton of philosophy on audio book.
Sacrifice is very much still alive in the music industry and upper echelon of the art world under capitalism. Iykyk
Thanks!
This idea is great. I recently reread Enjoying What We Don't Have, and this chapter is excellent. Looking forward to reading Universality and Identity Politics. Could you do a video on the satisfaction of dissatisfaction under capitalism please?
OK
Reminds me of the burger cook off between Ron Swanson and Chris Traeger in Parks & Rec.
If utopia is a world without sacrifice, is dystopia a world with forced sacrifice, or extreme sacrifice? I can think of hunger games, where sacrifice is explicit. There's logan's run where the old are sacrificed. Soylent green, people are sacrificed for food. How does sacrifice work with dystopia?
Also just discovered this channel, good stuff! Thanks!
I think you're right that dystopia would be a world of surplus sacrifice. Sacrifice becomes excessive in order to forge enjoyment in a world bereft of it (which is why it's dystopian).
Thank you this is amazing. I was listening to this and I was trying to historicise this somewhat in my mind, and also aggregate it to the more complex foundational institutions of modernity. I went back to Michel Aglietta's tome on money, Money: 5,000 Years of Debt and Power, where he equates the settlement of debt to the sacrifice of life to the future of society, and designates this the source of sovereignty.
Is this something you would recognise too, or am I off the mark here?
“...Debt is inalienable because it has its counterparty in the intergenerational collective that produces the one-directional social time from which confidence in the permanence of the society results. Throughout individuals’ lives, this debt must necessarily be recognised. Its forms depend on the type of sovereignty prevalent in the society concerned: it can mean sacrifices to gods, offerings to the ancestral generations, taxes to the state, or the transfer of assets to the following generation, whether in the familial form of inheritance or the socialised form of retirement savings. Vertical debt is thus linked to the society’s endurance over time.
It is precisely the fact that life debt is fundamentally inalienable that allows it to mediate the relationship between money and sovereignty. Life debt is aptly named, because it pledges allegiance to the absolute sovereignty that is death. Death is the absolute creditor of life debt, for every human recognises it as the supreme power. The political sovereign, on the other hand, represents the immortality of society in the face of the mortality of that society’s members.”
I think that's exactly right. Life debt is basically a pledge of the ultimate sacrifice, as you say.
On the example of Jesus, it’s interesting to contrast this with the treatment of Jesus (or Isa) in Islam. Obviously, from a position of strict monotheism, Muslims do not hold Isa to be divine, but they do consider him a great prophet and he is revered greatly by Muhammad, in the Qur’an, and by the Islamic tradition. However, along with rejecting his divinity, the Qur’an is also curious in rejecting his death - according to the qur’an, Jesus skipped straight to the ascension, escaping crucifixion through a slightly vague miracle (potentially using a decoy). I should say there is a bit of controversy on this, exegetically, but this is definitely the mainstream view. Perhaps, from your perspective, this is the ultimate form of iconoclasm - much more powerful than destroy the idol, which always imbues it with an implicit power and authority, Islam *refuses* the destruction of the idol, and so totally robs it of its sacrificial power
It also left me wondering where you would locate sacrifice in the establishment of Islam (in contrast to its relatively transparent place in Judaism and Christianity). Perhaps the collapse of the utopian egalitarian society founded by the prophet? I’ve long argued that all global religions are founded on a feeling of tragedy, and maybe you’re getting at something similar
I absolutely agree with this reading of the rejection of Christ's death. Great point.
Hi Todd! I've really been enjoying all of your videos. I'm wondering if there is any significant difference between this "sacrifice theory of value" and the labor theory of value? Like in the case of commodity production, the sacrifice comes from the worker's sacrificed labor in the production of surplus value for their boss. In producing the commodity, you know the worker always had to sacrifice an amount of labor above and beyond what it was worth in their wages. Or is this just a way of looking at the labor theory of value that makes our enjoyment in the destruction contained within commodities un-disavowalable?
In the labour theory of value, isn't it that the worker sacrifices labour-time (as in, time that would otherwise be freedom-from-work)? The surplus value is not what is being sacrificed, but rather, produced as a result of this sacrifice.
If so, sacrificial, and laborious production seem to coincide.
And the surplus-enjoyment of the consumer, and the surplus-value of Capital coincide as well.
It's a great point. I don't think that what I'm saying here is at odds with the labor theory of value. It is just a way of thinking about the relationship between the satisfaction that the commodity provides and the idea of value.
One of the best discussions of this I've seen is "When Surplus Enjoyment Meets Surplus Value" by Alenka Zupancic. It seems to me there is some kind of link between the two ideas, but I am not sure I fully understand just yet what that link is!
Great video! I wonder, however, what is the relation between the sublimity (and the lost enjoyment) of sacrifice and the phenomenon of uncanny? My idea is that the uncanny takes place when something that was supposed to be sacrificed and lost re-appears as present, therefore, making one confront the fullness of monstrous enjoyment, a lack of a lack. One can think about the horror of dead soldiers (who were supposed to give their lives for the fatherland and provide for society's cohesion) returning from the grave and upsetting the feeling of (false) security the sacrifice provided
I like that idea quite a bit.
@@toddmcgowan8233 By the way did this lecture or ideas you address appear anywhere in print? I may want to use some things you're talking about in one of the articles I'm going to write so I need to know how to refer to them. I know that Zizek said similar things when he dealt with the invention of tradition and collective memory in one of his books but I find the way you talk about sacrifice much clearer and more precise
@@stanislavkhudzik8314 If you email me directly, I can send you the books where I talk about sacrifice. It's Capitalism and Desire, and Enjoying What We Don't Have
This was brilliant, Todd. Thank you. I have a question: would you say that this explains the unexpectedly enduring appeal of exploitation cinema? I say unexpected because these films were originally produced as throwaway junk, often with little regard for working conditions (consider, for example, the animal cruelty involved in the production of Cannibal Holocaust amid protests from some cast and crew). And yet now these films are being lavishly repackaged in expensive, deluxe special edition Blu-rays with tons of extras. Isn't as if they represent the reconciliation of two types of commodity - the once throwaway consumable that is now a collectable? Maybe that's all there is to say about this, but I'd be really interested in any thoughts on it.
I do agree that the initial appeal of exploitation cinema consists in its symbolic location as detritus. One is enjoying what has no place--or at least only a marginal place--within the symbolic structure. But when it's repackaged nicely, one sustains this initial appeal and combines it with the pleasure of the disavowal of loss in the commodity. Very nice connection.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Interesting point about the place of exploitation cinema within the symbolic structure. I hadn't thought of that aspect. Many thanks
4:10 *sacra facere* “So my idea is that sacrifice actually creates value-that there is no value just existing in the world and with the act of sacrifice we create value. We give value to something by moving it into a different realm, by sacrificing it. So through the act of sacrifice we might say something becomes lost and in the act of it becoming lost it becomes sublime. So we sacrifice into sublimity, we sacrifice in order to create a sublime object that then gives us a source of enjoyment-and gives us something that’s valuable and not just everyday. So sacrifice removes the object from the everyday. [...] As long as it’s something that means something to us. When we sacrifice the thing then we gain access to this other realm of the beyond or the sacred. We only enjoy what’s absent because what’s absent appears to us as transcendent, that is, it appears beyond the empirical realm of everything else.”
Hey Todd, do you think it’s possible that we also enjoy what is absent because it is our only access point to the empirical?
Yes, I think that's exactly right. It is the opening to the empirical field of objects.
With that being said, would it be fair to say that we sacrifice notions through the creation/ naming of objects?
@@jeanlamontfilms5586 I see why you would say that, but wouldn't it be more the other way around? That we sacrifice objects by creating notions of them?
@@toddmcgowan8233 I see what you mean but it just seems like for example, the yearly production of iPhones(objects) require the yearly sacrifice of the non-being of the“next iPhone”(notion).
Apple in particular seems to sacrifice the non-existence of the “next iPhone” through the yearly production of iPhones.
I hope I'm correct in saying that, with the neutralisation of 'harmful' commodities (i.e. Prof. Zizek's enumerations of diet coke, chocolate laxatives etc.), the sacrifice is redoubled, since what is being sacrificed is the sacrifice-health itself, which -instead of eliminating enjoyment- produces even more enjoyment.
I wonder how one can (and if one should) *avoid* the Socialist-Realist celebration of the proletariat, while simultaneously avowing sacrifice. Something like veneration of the proles, without Gulags?
Perhaps the solution lies in the avowal of sacrifice in the form of working for the benefit of others. We work for the benefit of others now when we produce goods and services, but that sacrifice is disavowed and thereby mystified, to the point of it being quantified and accumulated as capital. In a healthy post-capitalist system, there would still be work, but it would be directly avowed as work done for the sake of others, and we could enjoy the fruits of that kind of labor directly rather than being paid in coin to spend in the consumption of commodities. I am spit-balling here. :)
I think that with Diet Coke sacrifice is located somewhat differently. Or, there is an enjoyment in giving up enjoyment, as so many monks know.
@@ronrice1931 I think that the attempt to direct our sacrifice in productive areas is doomed to fail. The whole point is that utility is what is given up, so one cannot make that useful without destroying the act of sacrifice.
Diet coke is just as unhealthy as "regular" coke instead of sugar they use artificial sweeteners like aspartame which actually has metabolic effects, most artificial sweeteners are obesogenic too.
But Diet coke has only the semblance of a harm-free commodity through the magical power of marketing & ultimately that's what matters, funny enough that you mention zizek cause he actually drinks diet coke thinking it will save him from his diabetes.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Our labor is "given up" when we do work of any kind. You seem to be saying there is no healthy, positive way to achieve enjoyment! I can't help but think your point of view has been skewed by the historical situation we are in. It seems excessively pessimistic to me to think we will always and forever be driven to self-destructive acts.
I think the question I've been struggling against has to do with the perverse self-sacrifice for The Cause.
Of course, everything is castrated; castration is the pre-requisite of enjoyment. However, where -within these coordinates- is the rejection of enjoyable self-sacrifce a la perversion?
Am I wrong to equate sacrificial logic with perversion at all?
The question of where perversion fits in is certainly a thorny one. In a sense, the pervert performs sacrifice all the time--sometimes inflicting it, sometimes accepting it. But I would say that performance is the key. The sacrifice is always done for the Other's enjoyment. The pervert sacrifices for the Other in order to avoid self-sacrifice. That's how I would figure it.
@@toddmcgowan8233 So there's no defence for Tarkovsky's hero in Nostalghia; his sacrificial gesture being directed exactly to the Other.
But on a more serious note: What I understand from your argument is that 'sacrifice' produces sublimity, and the ordinary object becomes the objet petit a. To whom -then- is it directed? For whom is the desirous object produced?
Say -for example- Schiller's poem from the 9th symphony, where, to enjoy the sublimity of brotherhood promised by the first half of the poem, the audience is instructed (quite unconvincingly) to kneel down and pray to a 'Holy Father'. The command to the people is to sacrifice themselves to be able to enjoy- it's quite 'avowed' but nevertheless perverse.
Possibly this is where my suspicion against 'sacrifice' arises. I don't see a way out of its perverse enjoyment.
I think it would be useful to hear what you deem as the opposite of value-producing sacrifice. Is true love sacrificial?
@@noorelahi1997 I don't think it's perverse because it is sacrifice for its own sake. The point of the sacrifice is that there is enjoyment tied to sacrifice. Full stop. Perversion wants to use that enjoyment to provoke the Other, to arouse the Other. I think there's a difference, but I understand if you would claim not.
Yet again Todd uses twinkies as an example. My man loves his snack cakes.
Sadly, since I have become vegetarian over 20 years ago, I haven't been able to eat them. So they really are an object of sacrifice for me.
@@toddmcgowan8233
You should do a video on why is vegetarianism or eating plants being associated with femininity or weakness in a mans character (alt-right name calling soyboys) whereas consumption of animal foods is considered masculine (your not a REAL man if you don't eat meat! Having barbecues or going to steakhouses is considered an manly event ) & how that's related to reproducing patriarchy.
But vegeterianism is just the next step to going the full way of a Whole Food Plant Based diet... if vegetarianism just means lacto-octo vegetarian you have not gone the full way yet..,
eh.. I feel like each particular sacrifice requires some kind of perspective.
The broccoli may be a bigger sacrifice because you're sacrificing flavor.
In a way, all actions have an opportunity cost, so everything can potentially be a sacrifice depending on how you look at things.
In my life, I feel a pressure to sacrifice from others. I'm often very complacent. I'm very easy to satisfy and easy to forgive. Friends and family usually get mad at me for not being as ambitious as I need to be. I don't really go out of my way to get things on sale and I don't really try to maximize earnings. I just float on by and I'm extremely content, which can make me short sighted and very lazy, which I guess is a sacrifice?
I do feel like what you describe is a perpetual act of sacrifice. It's the sacrifice of utility. It seems to me that floating by is enjoyable precisely because it gives up maximizing one's profitability or the chance to make every minute as profitable as possible.
I have a hard time following this distinction between "pleasure" and "enjoyment". I assume by the latter you mean to refer to Lacan's "jouissance", which is "beyond the pleasure principle". But then "jouissance" in French means both orgasmic pleasure, which is surely not sustainable as you say enjoyment is, and usufruct, i.e., property rights, which likewise does not seem to be something that can be relied on to be sustainable. At the very end of your presentation here you use the term "satisfaction", and I wonder if that is closer to what Lacan was getting at with "jouissance".
Also, you argue that the way to get beyond the capitalist mindset is to avow sacrifice rather than to disavow it. But what if we can only enjoy sacrifice by disavowing it? Or, is there possibly a 'good' enjoyment and a 'bad' enjoyment, healthy vs unhealthy. Surely the enjoyment we get from owning an iPhone that children have suffered and died to produce cannot be compared to the kind of enjoyment or satisfaction that we get from sacrificing our time to help others, etc. Or are they the same at the level of being something we as humans simply need?
Random thoughts here. Love your work, between you and Adrian Johnston I feel like I am finally starting to get a handle on all this stuff!
I think enjoyment is taken as having the same relationship to desire as pleasure has to wish. Watching Todd’s video on the death drive should clear up that association.
My understanding of Lacan’s jouissance is an excess of enjoyment, closer to suffering.
Julian Browne definitely I think Jouissance has this sense of burning pleasure in a dialectic with pain. We can’t forget of course that one of Lacan’s biggest influences was Sade
I think that all enjoyment is unhealthy insofar as it takes something from us. It depends on its nonproductivity, so the attempt to differentiate between a healthy and an unhealthy version will never work. You're right that jouissance in French definitely connotes orgasm and thus appears as something momentary. But in the later seminars, as Lacan associates jouissance with drive, it must surely be conceived of as being sustained. As he says of the drive, it has no spring nor fall, no noon nor night--and yet it provides enjoyment. That said, I will readily admit that my conception of enjoyment is somewhat heterodox and not necessarily true to a Lacanian source.
Todd McGowan I enjoyed your reply.......
Hello Todd I just discovered that you actually have an youtube channel
I don't think sacrifice is some kind of transhistorical phenomenon nor do I understand how gift-giving like a potlatch is considered to be a form of sacrifice akin to a ritual klling of an animal/human or capitalist valorization (if that's what your implying).
Here's a quote from the video at 8:00:
"Really no matter what is sacrificed, as long it's something that means something to us, when we sacrifice the thing then we gain access to this other realm or the sacred"
Really now? I agree on the latter part of the quote about gaining access to the sacred but I have 2 historical questions for you:
1. If it really doesn't matter what's being sacrificed to gain access to the sacred then why in "pre-modern societies" does the sacrificial object & the associated rituals of sacrifice generally revolve around sacrifice of humans (or an animal substituting for an human)? Afterall Jesus Christ is called "The Lamb of God" in the Bible, you will never see a ritual killing of plants in "pre-modern societies".
You showed a picture of a ram but you didn't actually talk about that being a sacrifical object haha.
2. You mention sacrifice existing "pre-modern societies" & Capitalism but what about so-called Primitive Communism or contemporary gatherer-hunters? Do you agree that human/animal sacrifice (ritual slaughter) does not predate the invention of agriculture & does not exist non-agricultural communities - that is sacrifice does not exist in non-class societies?
Your right about sacrifice still existing today though under capitalism, it's good that you mentioned that.
What's sacrificed has to have utility. That's what I meant when I said that the object needs to be meaningful. One sacrifices utility for the sacred. My contention would be that sacrifice is constitutive of the social order, even a hunter-gatherer society. I follow Marx on this, when he says that the anatomy of the human being holds the key to the anatomy of the ape. Because we see the necessity of sacrifice now and across every society in history, we can conclude something about non-agrarian societies from this.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Ok that's an fair enough clarification of your video. But I would have to add that in the video you correctly pointed that sacrifice in pre-modern societies had a religious dimension - but a pre-modern person would not of understood the sacrificed object to have anything to do with the [bourgeois] catergorical abstraction of a "utility" of the sacrificed object that's seperate from the explicit religious dimension of the sacrifice, but purely in religious terms. The ordinary "use" of the object & the sacred function of the object would be considered the same thing. "Utility" is not a transhistorical category!