¯:
discussion |
¯:
discussion |
 Sergiy TaradajkoFrom Sacher-Masoch’s Motives1 Translated from
Ukrainian by Camilla Khromova
No one has ever been so far
with
so little offence to decency. G.Deleuze. Coldness
and Cruelty Like this double name,
the relevant phenomenon also
looks, if any, dual and double. At first it is the writer to be remembered, then
instantly comes something else
– a well-known state of mind, which
got its name from a part of the writer’s
one: ‘masochism’. There
is obviously no need to remind that it
concerns a peculiar pleasure
caused
by pain and humiliation. But there also
appears
an indefinite duality, because it is about some sexual deviation. However it is only one side of the matter, since
the very notion ‘masochism’ can be used
in the situations virtually unrelated to sexuality.
By the way, there instantly arises
some doubt: is the phenomenon
actually and exclusively sexual? Even when it
comes to ‘deviation’,
the familiar duality comes at once
ether.
Let us remember
‘S&M’, if we choose slang, or ‘sado-masochistic complex’, if we are more comfortable
with an ‘academic’
style. By the way, no end of researches have already been devoted to Sacher-Masoch
(and this very phenomenon as well).
However
what is immediately sensed there is not the mentioned
duality, but rather an unconcealed
subjectivity and arbitrary understanding.
There appears something similar
to ‘dissemination’
of Jacques Derrida (1981). That is why every such interpretation
seems to remind us how
little we understand ‘masochism’. The main shortcomings of such interpretations are
that they try to explain
this actually complicated
phenomenon from their own points
of view. Something entirely strange and non-standard is,
as a rule, treated in terms
of a common and restricted experience
(here is duality again,
and that does not seem helpful in solving this problem). So let us leave this world of
perceptions alone and look for something
more objective. For example some circumstances,
better
not of a ‘boudoir’ character,
which
any research of Sacher-Masoch
has in abundance. __________________________________ 1 Published in
Ukraine (Vsesvit
11-12, 2012) Let us start with a fact quite remarkable for us,
Ukrainians. Sacher-Masoch was born and brought
up in Lviv,
actually in Lemberg (as the town was called at the time). A double name again.
Moreover, Sacher-Masoch
was known to identify himself as ‘Rusyn’ (in German spelling Ruthenen). This is how the
nationality was referred to in
Austria-Hungary. That is, Ukrainian... In their works
these keen researches proved the absence of any valid documental evidence
for Sacher-Masoch’s Ukrainian origin. More
than that, he himself seemed to mitigate his
own statement, remembering with
warmth
and love his ‘nurse’ who was really a
Ukrainian. It can be understood this way: if
not by blood, but from the first life experience I can feel
myself a man with
Ukrainian roots. Besides, the so called ‘success in literature’ is often
remembered. The writer had
to find his own theme, his own
peculiarity among the men-of-letters. Be this as it may, but Sacher-Masoch’s ‘ukrainanship’ has not been
found noteworthy. As a matter
of fact, we also feel that there is really not so much of a ‘Ukrainian touch’ in his works.
It is indeed so. Yet, the single argument in
this case overweighs everything:
the above mentioned self-identification. It can remind us of Nietzsche viewing himself as a Polish
nobility decedent. Similarly, even the inquisitive scholars cannot find any evidence or records to
support
this version. But what is
there to prove when it comes to Neitzsche? The person with the deepest insight of the aristocracy’s
very sense? What is important in case of Sacher-Masoch is not a genealogy
but the account for the reasons that made
him consider
himself a ‘Rusyn’.
First of all it is the country of his
life and works to be remembered.
Officially
it bore the name of ‘Austria-Hungary
Monarchy’. Meanwhile the other prominent
Austrian writer, Robert Musil, in the peculiar
ironical style of
his, named it ‘Kakanien’ (from the widely used abbreviation ‘K-K’,
which means ‘kaiserlich-koninglish’,
that is
‘Imperial Kingdom’). Here is the
double name again which reveals the very essence of
this state. It was rather
mixed and unstable
unity of different
nations. Not surprisingly,
the contradictions of the kind
were especially widespread there.
The most acute confrontation, however, was not merely between certain nations but rather between
different civilizations and worlds. The fact is, what constituted
the state were the nations from both the West and the East, exactly from
Western and Eastern Europe.
The ‘Western side’ was virtually German, while the
‘Eastern’ one was mostly ‘Slavic’. But
what is actually inherent to the
‘German
view’? In attempt to define,
at least
one, its pivotal feature, we can remember that from Kant to
Nietzsche (for all the great difference
between them) the German thinking departed from
the
subject’s active role. This immediately defines the role for
the other, Slavic side.
Not without reason, it was
for the German side to be dominant
in Austria-Hungarian Empire
history (the word ‘dominant’ cannot but catch sight
of everybody quite
aware of the masochistic motives).What
is new here is the other side’s presence enabled to view the situation
just from it. ‘In
such a relation’, Masoch writes, ‘only one can be hammer and the
other
anvil. I wish to be the anvil’ (2003). It is from there on that his imagined or exaggerated ‘ukrainanship’ stems. This very position made him
look for entirely other
perception, opposite
to the ‘western’ one. No doubt the western thought
was also ready to criticize its own grounds (just remember Kant and Nietzsche). But it was about
criticizing from ‘inside’. For no critic encroached on its determinant
feature – on the self-concerned, self-sufficient and self-assured subject. By the way, it
was the subject’s presence that premised that critics.
What made Sacher-Masoch’s position different was his proceeding from the otherwise – from the subordinate, dependent and debased
subject. Strange as it may seem,
but this point of view, in
spite of its seeming weakness,
suggested that any substantial critics of the West could be done from ‘outside’, for
it could touch upon the basic issue:
the subject himself. It must be noted that the famous ‘Venus in Furs’ was a part of the series named
the Heritage of Cain, which
was intended to depict the whole present day civilization. Remarkably, it came
to the writer as the
image of this first brother murderer. But once
Cain is recalled, immediately Abel is recalled
as well.
Again the familiar configuration
consisting of the active and passive parties. But Masoch goes further on. Taking the passive
role, he gives the active one to
woman.
It is from here on that masochism originates. Most
important, such relations should not be put on a private, personal
level. It must be stressed again that it is the
Western
civilization to be primary concerned here. It was the time of the Western world view profoundly breaking
up. What made one of its new peculiarities
was the sex issue.
On the world view level it manifested itself
as the idea of the West having
essentially
‘masculine’ nature. With
good reason, the basic western thought
sources
(biblical as well as mythological) give preference
primarily
to man. Viewed in this way, the active subject
appears to have, if any, concealed masculine features. It must be said that the
West is characterized by the efforts to get rid of any domination. It can well be related to
‘manhood’, properly to ‘fatherhood’ – Oedipus is to be recalled here.
Actually, however, this is all about struggle and fight,
so it is one more manifestation
of man’s activity. Then suddenly,
in the remote area of this Western world emerges an unexpected person
capable to say something entirely new. How about passing this
essentially masculine role together with all the powers
to woman? More than that, why not do it with the full awareness of
her acquiring some features that are mostly not inherent to her
– of her getting severe, imperative and cruel? Accordingly, the man is
to be granted just the opposite role. In his new position he proves to be dependent, even enslaved
and
humiliated. Certainly, from strictly western viewpoint
it all seems nothing but nonsense. To remember, it is
just a counterpoise to
the western thinking that Sacher-Masoch looks for. To accept, the
latter’s highest values are freedom and independent self-sufficiency.
Moreover, it is the intelligence and
realized good order, which is inherent to the West. Yet
Sacher-Masoch not only gives
up all these basic ideas, but brings
forward the opposite and incompatible
ones. What he sets off against the intelligence is a keen sensuality. Thus a good excuse for all
these slavery humiliation is
found. – That is pleasure. The above mentioned duality
reaches here its climax, for, let us repeat,
the writer so firmly and decisively contra poses his
view to the widely accepted one that these two attitudes appear to exclude
each other. Perhaps the first, therefore,
essential conclusion can be drawn here.
That is: no understanding of Masoch is possible
if one views him from a common widespread
perspective. Moreover, Masoch himself seems to prompt
us where we are to
find the answer. The very title of his famous
work is certainly not
accidental. The reader
might think that Venus in furs is the woman the story tells about, but the writer
asserts that actually she is a goddess, the
goddess of love, not in any romantic
transferred meaning,
but in literal and direct sense.
It is not without purpose that she first
appears
as a statue. ‘The object of my adoration is of stone’. Quite evidently, the imperative womanhood that seemed to take possession of
Sacher-Masoch
is not merely a real, particular woman, but rather an ancient
mighty power. Then the role of any
real, so to say, particular woman is easy to
understand. For, it
is nothing but the role that a real woman plays. Actually she is to embody and perform that mighty power. This makes us immediately
remember the obviously and evidently theatrical air
of ‘Venus in Furs’.
If anything, it accounts for all these ‘whips’ and ‘lashes’ and primarily for
these ‘furs’ which appear somewhat assistant and supportive.
Performing a Goddess, we must admit, is not an easy job.
It needs certain special devices to make the effect
stronger, though actually they
are but common theatrical properties. Thus, we are to distinguish
between
two rather different dimensions.
On the one hand, there
is a real,
but in fact exclusively ‘scenic’ dimension;
on the other hand, there is
a mythological but
virtually determinant one. The text of ‘Venus in Furs’ provides us with many references
to the well-known motives from literature and mythology. Moreover, the references at hand seem to excuse and even,
if anything, inspire, all this sensuality
of Masoch’s. ‘I was reading… the Book of
Judith. I envied the
hero Holofernes
because
of the regal woman who cut off his head with a sword, and because of
his beautiful sanguinary end’.
< ... > ‘I envied King Gunther whom the
mighty Brunhilde fettered on the bridal
night’. Here Masoch as though
asserts: this is not anything individual and pathological. This
is the
echo of a very old, forgotten
world vision, now almost
incomprehensible
to the modern man… In order to conceive
anything similar, we certainly have to turn to some wholly concrete researches,
first of all, to the wonderful
book by Canadian scholar of Indian studies David Kinsley (1997). The book tells us that in
India, in the tantric trend of Hinduism the goddesses were long known, greatly
surprising and weird. They were called ‘Mahavidyas’. The most surprising
thing about them was that they contradicted not only the common idea of
goddesses, but also the very idea of womanhood. Nevertheless, this contradiction could not on the least prevent
these goddesses from being worshipped. Such ‘relations’ are
obviously
worth close examination. What catches sight is that
Mahavidyas dominate over the men rather
brutally.
Not only over mortal humans; that is quite natural, for
Goddesses they are, but
also over the greatest male gods
of Hinduism. Thus the first of Mahavidyas, namely Kali, is
portrayed standing on lying Shiva and holding a cut
off head
in one hand and blood covered axe in
the other. All her outfit is
only a belt and beads – exactly
the belt
of chopped hands and the beads of cut
off
heads. What is meant
here is evidently the
death, for Mahavidyas tend
to live in the special places
of corpses cremation. What else the weird goddesses distinguish themselves by is their sexuality. In this area they also dominate over the males,
being constantly depicted in the upper
position. Moreover they are especially worshipped and this certainly brings to mind ‘masochism’. However, given such an ancient origin of the tradition,
this cannot be attributed to any pathology, but, on
the contrary, definitely needs clearing up. The total
number of Mahavidyas
was ten, so the described qualities seem to let them be united in a group.
This fact cannot rule out any special characteristic features. For example, the
famous
goddess
Lakshmy was also included in the
group, though unlike the other goddesses,
she was attractive and good-natured.
The number and differences
of Mahavidyas as though remind
the very
nature of a female – unsteady, changeable and
variable. On the other hand,
it was considered as
the manifestation of a great origin
belonging to the beyond
world. ‘The ten Mahavidyas are different
forms of an overarching,
transcendent female reality, who is
usually referred to simply as the
Mahadevi (great
goddess)’ (1997: 18-20). Certainly, her power seemed incredible and
exquisite.
Needless
to say once more, how imperative
and cruel the Mahavidyas appeared. It is this power enhanced with
womanhood that caused worshipping. The entire
tantric world vision, by the way, was aimed not at that common to us speculations,
but, first of all, at the ritual, at
the actual and meticulously regulated servicing. This again reminds of masochism. If so, all its ‘theatrical’ features
were not a mere acting
and performing, but
a kind of ‘liturgy’, or a ‘mass’
to be served with diligence and self-sacrifice. That precise regulation
(in a written form with accordance to European tradition) can account for Sacher-Masoch’s ‘contracts’. All these, however, is only the circumstances. The main question
actually is why this female origin became
so important in the ancient world view? To
answer
it, let us first underline that
any mythology concerned the theme of
appearing.
The most principal and pivotal
was the question where anything
had come from, and,
more than that, where everything had come from. The ancient
prehistoric person must have had only
one instance to comprehend that appearance:
birth
giving. For this reason it was the female element that
proved
to be the most powerful and thus adored and divinized. Notably, Sacher-Masoch was quite aware
of this motif and explained it in his book, ‘because the most important function of existence – the continuation of the species – is her vocation’. This idea is important because it turns our research to the area
of philosophy.
Certainly, it is not only because
such a characteristic
word ‘being’ is used, but because
some different and so really philosophical
implication appears. Acceptably, this feminine origin, when
taken from the side of its fertility, is
primarily ‘the being’. For it is
actually
intended
to create ‘a being’. Thus the woman as
though embodies the
being and proves, so to say, more
‘ontological’ than
the man. When near her,
you surely sense her presence more acutely than your own
one. So we are to assume that world
perception rests
not on ‘feeling oneself’
(it is a purely western understanding), but on feeling one’s closeness
to somebody other, first and foremost,
to woman. Originally it is certainly the
mother, eventually come the other women. They indeed, as if grant existence, first physically
then
also metaphysically. To comprehend this being
it is
not enough to feel yourself from inside, for, first of
all, you must feel it from outside, near you, you must acutely feel its presence. ‘I don’t want anything of you, except
to be your slave, to be always
near you!’ It is this ‘being near’
(as Masoch originally
puts it:
Nähe sein) to prove most essential here. For
‘to be’ properly means ‘to
be near
somebody’, that is to be grounded not on one’s personal self, but
rather on one’s proximity, closeness to somebody other than oneself. We are to remember, here
is the echo of a very old and mighty world
vision. In return to ‘Mahavidyas’, let us stress, that the name of these weird
goddesses means ‘The Great Knowledge’, – ‘maha-vidya’. What immediately catches the eye is the stem
‘vid’. It is from this very
stem
that
the word ‘Vedas’ (vision) derives. Notably,
our Ukrainian language preserved this
stem intact: ‘s-vid-omist′’
(conscious), ‘do-vid-atysya’ (to learn), ‘zas-vid-chyty’ (to confirm), ‘spo-vid′’
(confession) and even ‘vid′-ma’ (witch). These Mahavidyas’
very name prompts us:
it is not merely an
exotic feature of an ancient
culture; it is the carefully concealed and the most important secret about the whole life’s essence. We already know that these goddesses were the
manifestations of a great,
exclusively feminine deity of world beyond. Indeed, when we try to turn
from mythological to philosophical
view,
what appears is the being. Yet, what is this being
actually like? It is rather variable, just like these ‘Mahavidias’ but immutably powerful and dominative. Sometimes it is seductive and heady, but more often cold and indifferent. It can
be cruel and terrible too. What is
important, it allows you no doubt, who is to determine everything. You can easily make sure how mighty this
being is. For it is regardless of
all your efforts that
you are granted it
and start
to exist. What, if
any, your activity
means? Thus, since time immemorial the
creature capable to present
you with being was accepted as the most powerful
deity. Similarly, in spite of all
your wishes – leave alone suicide
– you do have to part with this
being. Evidently, it was the reason why that vital deity was at the same time extremely cruel. That is
how these properties, that seemed absolutely different, were
united.
Reasonably, in the well-known essay of Sigmund Freud ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’ we find the assumption
about the existence based on the instincts
or ‘prime drives’ to life and death (1955). Given what have been said about it, masochism (if to hold to this
term) can hardly to be treated as
only a deviant affliction. We
have seen that actually Sacher-Masoch
appeared to recreate somewhat
ancient world view, almost different from the
present time one. By the way, its traces can
be found not only in Masoch’s works. Here
is one more Ukrainian philosopher:
Khoma Brut.
Let us not argue that he is
rather
a well-known character from the book (1998), than a real philosopher.
Actually, a philosopher is
not so much a person as a certain
position or state when a man suddenly finds himself on the break
of entire being. In this sense
even
Socrates is more a character
from Plato’s dialogues than a person. Let us remember that Khoma was
to meet a witch. She jumped on his back (an upper
position again) and they rushed without
feeling earth under the feet. The philosopher had
‘a demonically sweet feeling’. Khoma ‘felt some piercing, some languidly
terrible pleasure’.
The
following events make an impression of inevitability and desperation. Notably,
N.Gogol himself is
in a way similar to Sacher-Masoch.
He is also a Ukrainian (in this case quite undoubtedly). He was also
born in the empire,
so he got the dominant language
and even reached a success. However he constantly
felt the presence of some other
origin, of a world beyond element, he felt
the powerful pressure of being itself. ‘Supposing that Truth is a woman – what then?’(2009: Preface) Bibliography Gogol, N. (1998)
The Viy. The Collected Tales of Nicolai
Gogol. Vintage Classics. Derrida, J. (1981) Dissemination, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Freud, S. (1955) Beyond the Pleasure Principle, SE 18. The Standard Edition of the Works
of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogart Press. Kinsley, D. (1997) Tantric Visions of the Divine Feminine: The Ten Mahavidyas, Berkeley: University
of California Press. Nietzsche, F. (2009) Beyond
Good and Evil. Trans. Helen Zimmern: <http:
//www.gutenberg.org> Sacher-Masoch, L. von, (2003) Venus in
furs. Trans. Fernanda Savage: <http: //www.gutenberg.org> |