SEDUCTION

CultureTexts
Arthur andMarilouise Kroker

General Editors
CultureTexts is aseries of creative explorations intheory, politics and
culture at the fin-de-millenium . Thematically focussed
around key
theoretical debates
inthe postmoderncondition, the CultureTexts series
challenges received discourses in art, social and political
theory,
feminism, psychoanalysis, value inquiry, science
andtechnology, the
body,
and critical aesthetics. Taken individually, contributions to
CultureTexts represent the forward
breaking-edge
of
postmoderntheory
andpractice.
Titles
Seduction
JeanBaudrillard
Panic
Encyclopedia
Arthur Kroker, Marilouise Kroker andDavidCook
Life
After Postmodernism: Essays on Value andCulture
editedandintroducedby John Fekete
Body Invaders
edited andintroducedby
Arthur andMarilouise Kroker
The PostmodernScene:
Excremental Culture andHyperAesthetics
Arthur Kroker/David Cook
SEDUCTION
JEANBAUDRILLARD
translated by Brian Singer
NewWorld Perspectives
CultureTexts Series
Montreal
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Published by CTHEORY BOOKS in
partnership with NWP and copyright, 2001, by CTHEORY
BOOKS. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means
(including photocopying, recording, or information storage and
retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher,
except for reading and browsing via the World Wide Web.
Users are not permitted to mount this file on any network
servers. Readers are encouraged to download this material for
personal use. Commercial use with permission only.
First published as De la seduction by Editions Galilee, 1979.
9, rue Linne, Paris 5e.
Editions Galilee
English language copyright New World Perspectives, 1990 .
ISBN 0-920393-25-X
Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data
Baudrillard, Jean
Seduction
(CultureTexts series)
Translation of: De la seduction.
ISBN 0-920393-25-X
1. Seduction-Psychological aspects.
(Psychology). 3 . Sex (Psychology) 4.
1 . Title. II . Series .
BF637.S36133813 1990
2 . Femininity
Postmodernism.z
V
CONTENTS
I I I . THEPOLI TI CAL DESTI NY
OF
SEDUCTI ON
I NTRODUCTI ON
I . THEECLI PTI C OFSEX
The Ec l i p t i c of Sex 3
The Et ernal I rony
of
t he Communi t y 1 2
St ereo-Porno 2 8
Seduc t i on / Produc t i on 37
I I . SUPERFI CI ALABYSSES
The
Sac red
Hori zon
of
Ap p earanc es
53
Tromp e l ' oei l
or
Enc hant ed Si mul at i on 60
I ' l l Be Your Mi rror 67
Deat h
i n
Samarkand 72
The Sec ret and The Chal l enge 79
The Effi gy of t he Seduc t ress 85
The I roni c St rat egy of t he Seduc er
98
The Fear
of Bei ng Seduc ed
1 1 9
The Passi on for Rul es 1 31
The Dual , t he Pol ar and t he Di gi t al 1 54
The "Ludi c " and Col d Seduc t i on 1 57
Seduc t i on as Dest i ny 1 79
INTRODUCTION
Afixed
destiny weighs on seduction. For religion seduction
was astrategy of the devil, whether in the guise of witchcraft
or love. It is always the seduction of evil -or of the world. It
is the very artifice
of the world. Its malediction has been un-
changed in ethics and philosophy, and today it is maintained
in psychoanalysis and the `liberation
of desire. '
Given the
present-day promotion of sex, evil and perversion, alongwith
the celebration of the ofttimes
programmatic resurrection of
all that was once accursed, it mightseem paradoxical that seduc-
tion has remained in
the shadows -and even returned thereto
permanently.
The eighteenth century still spoke of seduction. It was, with
valour and honour, acentral
preoccupation of the aristocratic
spheres. The bourgeois Revolution put an end to this preoccu-
pation (and the others, the later revolutions ended it irrevoca-
bly - every revolution, in its beginnings, seeks to end the
seduction of appearances) . The bourgeois era dedicated itself
to nature and production, things
quite foreign andeven express-
ly fatal to seduction. Andsince sexuality arises, as Foucault notes,
from aprocess of production (of discourse, speech
or
desire),
it is not at all surprising that seduction has been all the more
covered over. We live today the promotion
of nature, be it the
good
nature
of
the
soul of yesteryear, or the good material na-
ture of
things,
or even the psychic nature of desire. Nature pur-
sues its realization through all the metamorphosis of the
repressed, and through the
liberation of all energies, be they
2 SEDUCTION
psychic, social or material .
Seduction, however, never belongs to the order of nature,
but
that
of
artifice
-
never
to
the
order of
energy,
but
that
of
signs and rituals . This is why all the great systems of produc-
tion and interpretation have not ceased to exclude seduction
- to its good fortune - from their conceptual field . For seduc-
tion continues to haunt them
from
without, and
from deep wi-
thin its forsaken state, threatening them with collapse . i t awaits
the destruction of every godly order, including those of produc-
tion and desire . Seduction continues to appear to all orthodoxies
as malefice and artifice, a black magic for the deviation of all
truths, an exaltation
of
the malicious use
of
signs, a conspiracy
of signs . Every discourse is threatened with this sudden rever-
sibility, absorbed into its own signs without a trace of mean-
ing. This
is
why all disciplines, which have as an axiom the
coherence and finality of their discourse, must try to exorcize
it . This is where seduction and femininity are
confounded, in-
deed, confused . Masculinity has always been haunted by this
sudden
reversibility within the feminine . Seduction and femi-
ninity are ineluctable as the reverse side of sex, :meaning and
power.
Today the exorcism is more violent and systematic. We are
entering the era of final solutions ;
for
example, that of
the sex-
ual revolution, of the production and management of all limi-
nal and subliminal pleasures, the
micro-processing of desire,
with the woman who produces herself as woman, and as sex,
being the last avatar. Ending seduction .
Or
else the triumph of a soft seduction, a white, diffuse femini-
zation and eroticization of all relations in an enervated social
universe .
Or else none of the above. For nothing can be greater
than
seduction itself, not even the order that destroys it .
THEECLIPTIC OFSEX
Nothing
is les s
certain today than s ex, behind the liberation
of its dis cours e. And nothing today is les s certain than des ire,
behind the proliferation of its images .
In matters of s ex, the proliferation is approaching total los s .
Here lies the s ecret of the ever increas ing production of s ex
and its s igns , and the hyperrealis m of s exual pleas ure, particu-
larly feminine pleas ure . The principle of uncertainty has extend-
ed to s exual reas on, as well as political and economic reas on .
The s tate of s ex's liberation is als o that of its indetermina-
tion . No more want, no more prohibitions , and no more limits :
it
is
the
los s of
every referential principle
.
Economic reas on is
s us tained only by penury; it is put into ques tion with the reali-
zation of its objective, the abolition of the s pectre of penury.
Des ire too is s us tained only by want. When des ire is entirely
on
the
s ide of demand,
when
it is operationalized
without res -
trictions , it los es its imaginary and, therefore, its reality ; it ap-
pears everywhere, but in generalized s imulation. It is the ghos t
of des ire that haunts the defunct reality of s ex . Sex is every-
where, except in s exuality (Barthes ) .
In s exual mythology, the trans ition towards the feminine is
contemporaneous with the pas s age from determination to
general indetermination. The feminine is not s ubs tituted for the
6 SEDUCTION
masculine as one sex for another, according to some structural
inversion. It is substituted as the end of the determinate
representation of sex, as the flotation of the law~that regulates
the difference between the'sexes. The ascent
of
the feminine
corresponds to both the
apogee of sexual pleasure and a catas-
trophe relative
to
sex's reality principle
.
And so it is femininity that is gripping, in the present and
fatal situation of sex's hy perrealixy -
as
it was y esterday , but in
direct contrast, in irony and seduction.
Freud was right : there is but one sexuality , one libido - and
it is masculine. Sexuality has a strong, discriminative structure
centered on the phallus, castration, the Name- of- the
Father, and
repression
. There
is none
other. There
is no use
dreaming
of
some non- phallic, unlocked, unmarked sexuality. There is no
use seeking, from within this structure, to have the feminine
pass through to the other side, or to cross terms. Either the struc-
ture remains the same, with the female being'entirely absorbed
by the male, or else it collapses, and there is no longer either
female or male - the degree zero of the structure. This is very
much what is happening today : erotic poly valence, the
infinite
potentiality
of
desire, different connections, diffractions, libidi-
nal intensities
-
all multiple variants
of
a liberatory alternative
coming from the frontiers of a psy choanaly sis free of Freud,
or from the frontiers of desire free of psy choanaly sis . Behind
the effervescence of the paradigm of sex, every thing is con-
verging towards the non- differentiation of the structure and its
potential neutralization .
The danger of the sexual revolution for the female is that she
will be enclosed within a structure that condemns
her
to
either
discrimination when the structure is strong, or a derisory tri-
umph within a weakened structure.
The feminine, however, is, and has alway s been, somewhere
else
. That is the secret
of
its strength . Just as it is said that some-
thing lasts because its existence is not adequate to its essence,
it must be said that the feminine seduces because it is never
where it thinks it is, or where it thinks itself
. The feminine is
not found in the history of suffering and oppression imputed
THE
ECLIPTIC
OF
SEX 7
to i t - women's h i stor i c a l tr i bul a ti ons
(th ough by gui l e i t c on-
c ea l s i tsel f th er ei n) . It suf f er s suc h ser vi tude onl y wh ena ssi gned
to
a nd r epr essed wi th i n th i s str uc tur e - to wh i c h th e sexua l
r evol uti on a ssi gns a nd r epr esses i t a l l th e mor e
dr a ma ti c a l l y. But
by wh a t a ber r a nt c ompl i c i ty (c ompl i c i t wi th wh a t?
i f not, pr e-
c i sel y, th e ma l e) woul d one h a ve us
bel i eve th a t th i s i s th e f e-
ma l e's
h i stor y? Repr essi on i s a l r ea dy h er e i n f ul l f or c e, i n th e
na r r a ti ve of
women's sexua l a nd pol i ti c a l mi ser y, to th e exc l u-
si on of ever y oth er type of str ength a nd sover ei gnty.
Th er e i s a n a l ter na ti ve to sex a nd to
power , one th a t psy-
c h oa na l ysi s c a nnot know bec a use i ts a xi oma ti c s
a r esexua l . And
yes, th i s
a l ter na ti ve
i s
undoubtedl y
of
th e or der of th e f emi -
ni ne, under stood outsi de th e opposi ti on ma sc ul i ne/f emi ni ne,
th a t opposi ti on bei ng essenti a l l y ma sc ul i ne, sexua l i n i ntenti on,
a nd i nc a pa bl e of bei ng over tur ned wi th out c ea si ng to
exi st .
Th i s str ength of
th e f emi ni ne i s th a t of seduc ti on.
One ma y c a tc h a gl i mpse of a noth er , pa r a l l el uni ver se (th e
two never meet) wi th th e dec l i ne of psyc h oa na l ysi s a nd
sexu-
a l i ty a s str ong str uc tur es, a nd th ei r c l ea nsi ng wi th i n a psy a nd
mol ec ul a r uni ver se (th a t of
th ei r f i na l l i ber a ti on) . Auni ver se
th a t c a n
no
l onger be i nter pr eted i n ter ms of psyc h i c or psy-
c h ol ogi c a l r el a ti ons, nor th ose of r epr essi on a nd th e unc ons-
c i ous, but must be i nter pr eted i n th e ter ms of pl a y, c h a l l enges,
duel s,
th e
str a tegy of
a ppea r a nc es - th a t i s, th e ter ms of seduc -
ti on
. A uni ver se th a t c a n
no
l onger be i nter pr eted i n ter ms of
str uc tur es a nd di a c r i ti c a l opposi ti ons, but i mpl i es a seduc ti ve
r ever si bi l i ty - a uni ver se wh er e th e f emi ni ne i s not wh a t op-
poses th e ma sc ul i ne, but wh a t seduc es th e ma sc ul i ne.
In seduc ti on th e f emi ni ne
i s
nei th er a ma r ked nor a n un-
ma r ked ter m. It does not ma sk th e "a utonomy" of desi r e, pl ea s-
ur e or th e body, or of a speec h or wr i ti ng th a t i t h a s supposedl y
l ost(?) . Nor does i t l a y c l a i m
to
some tr uth
of
i ts own. It seduc es.
To be sur e, one c a l l s th e sover ei gnty of seduc ti on f emi ni ne
by c onventi on, th e sa me c onventi on th a t c l a i ms sexua l i ty to
be
f unda menta l l y ma sc ul i ne. But th e i mpor ta nt poi nt i s th a t th i s
f or m of sover ei gnty h a s a l wa ys exi sted -
del i nea ti ng, f r om a
di sta nc e, th e
f emi ni ne
a s
someth i ng
th a t i s
noth i ng,
th a t i s
never
8 SEDUCTION
"produced," i s never wherei t i s produced (and cert ai nly can-
not , t herefore, be found i n any "femi ni s t " demand). And t hi s
not from
t he pers pect i ve of aps ychi c or bi ologi cal bi -s exuali t y,
but t hat of t he t rans -s exuali t y of s educt i on whi ch t he ent i re
organi zat i on of s ex t ends t o reject - as does ps ychoanalys i s i n
accordance wi t h t he axi om t hat t here i s no ot her s t ruct ure t han
t hat
of
s exuali t y (whi ch renders
i t i ncapable, by
defi ni t i on,
of
s peaki ng about anyt hi ng els e).
What does t he women's
movement oppos e t o
t he phallocrat i c
s t ruct ure? Aut onomy, di fference, as peci fi ci t y of des i re andpleas -
ure, a di fferent relat i on t o t he female body, as peech, a wri t i ng
- but nevers educt i on
.
They are as hamed of s educt i on,
as i m-
plyi ng anart i fi ci al pres ent at i on of t he body, or ali fe of vas s alage
and pros t i t ut i on. They do not unders t and t hat s educt i on
repres ent s
mas t ery
over t he s ymboli c
uni vers e, whi le power
repres ent s only mas t ery of t he real uni vers e. The s overei gnt y
of s educt i on i s i ncommens urable wi t h t he pos s es s i on of
poli t -
i cal or s exual power.
There i s a s t range, fi erce compli ci t y bet ween't he femi ni s t
movement
and
t he order
of
t rut h. For s educt i on i s res i s t ed and
reject ed as a mi s appropri at i on of women's t rue bei ng, a t rut h
t hat
i n t he
las t
i ns t ance
i s t o be
foundi ns cri bed i n t hei r bodi es
anddes i res . In one s t roke t he i mmens e pri vi lege of t he femi -
ni ne i s effaced: t he pri vi lege of havi ng neveracceded t o t rut h
or
meani ng, and
of
havi ng remai ned
abs olut e
mas t er
of
t he realm
of
appearances . The capaci t y i mmanent t o s educt i on t o deny
t hi ngs t hei r t rut h andt urn i t i nt o agame, t he pure play of ap-
pearances , and t hereby foi l all s ys t ems of power andmeani ng
wi t h a mere t urn of t he hand. The abi li t y t o t urn appearances
i n on t hems elves , t o play on t he body's appearances ,
rat her t han
wi t ht he dept hs of des i re. Nowall appearances are revers i ble . . .
only
at
t helevel
of
appearances are s ys t ems fragi le andvulner-
able . . . meani ngi s vulnerable only t o enchant ment . Onemus t
be i ncredi bly bli nd t o deny t he s ole force t hat i s equal ands u-
peri or
t o
all ot hers , s i nce wi t h a s i mple play of t he s t rat egy of
appearances , i t t urns t hem ups i de down.
THEECLIPTIC OFSEX
9
Anatomy i s des ti ny, Freud s ai d . One mi ght be s urpri s ed that
the femi ni s t movement's
rejecti on of
thi s defi ni ti on, phalli c by
defi ni ti on, and s ealed wi th the s tamp of anatomy, opens onto
an alternati ve that remai ns fundamentally bi ologi cal and
ana-
tomi cal :
Indeed, woman's pleas ure does not have to choos e
between cli toral acti vi ty and vagi nal pas s i vi ty, for
example . The pleas ure of the vagi nal cares s does
not have to be s ubs ti tuted for that
of
the cli toral
cares s . They each contri bute, i rreplaceably, to
woman's
pleas ure .
Among other
cares s es . . .
Fon-
dli ng the breas ts , touchi ng
the vulva, s preadi ng the
li ps , s troki ng
the pos teri or
wall
of the vagi na,
brus hi ng agai ns t the mouth of the uterus , and s o
on
.
To evoke only a few of the mos t s peci fi cally
female pleas ures .
Luce Iri garay
Parole de femme?But i t i s always an anatomi cal s peech, al-
ways that of the body. What i s
s peci fi c to
women
li es
i n
the
di ffracti on of the erogenous zones , i n a decentered eroti ci s m,
the di ffus e polyvalence of s exual pleas ure and the trans fi gura-
ti on of the enti re body by des i re
:
thi s
i s the theme s ong that
runs through the enti re female, s exual revoluti on, but als o
through our enti re culture
of
the
body, from the Anagrammes
of Bellmer to Deleuze's mechani zed connecti ons . It i s always
a ques ti on
of
the body, i f
not the anatomi cal, then the organi c,
erogenous body, the functi onal
body that, even
i n
fragmented
and metaphori cal form, would have pleas ure as i ts object and
des i re as i ts natural mani fes tati on. But then ei ther the body i s
here
only
a metaphor (and i f thi s i s the cas e, what i s the s exual
revoluti on, and our enti rt
culture,
havi ng
become a body cul-
ture, talki ng about?), or els e, wi th thi s body s peech, thi s wom-
ans peech, we
have,
very
defi ni tely, entered i nto an anatomi cal
des ti ny, i nto anatomy as des ti ny. There i s nothi ng here radi cal-
ly oppos ed to Freud's maxi m.
Nowhere i s i t a ques ti on of s educti on, the body worked by
arti fi ce (and not by des i re), the body
s educed,
the
body to be
1
0 SEDUCTION
seduced, the body in its passion separated from its truth, from
that ethical truth of desire which obsesses us - that serious,
profoundly religious truth that the body today incarnates, and
for which seduction is j ust as ev il and deceitful
as
it
once
was
for religion . Nowhere
is it a question of the body deliv ered to
appearances
.
Now, seduction alone is radically opposed to anat-
omy as destiny. Seduction alone breaks the distinctiv e sexuali-
zation of bodies and the inev itable. phallic economy that results .
Any mov ement that believ es it can subv ert a system by its
infra-structure is naiv e. Seduction is more intelligent, and seem-
ingly spontaneously so. Immediately obv ious - seduction need
not be demonstrated, nor j ustified - it is there
all
at
once, in
the rev ersal
of
all the alleged depth of the real, of all psycholo-
gy, anatomy, truth,
or
power. It knows ( this is its secret) that
there is no anatomy, nor psychology, that all signs are rev ersi-
ble. Nothing belongs to it, except appearances - all powers
elude
it, but it "rev ersibilizes"
all
their signs
.
How can'
one
oppose
seduction? The only thing truly at stake is mastery of the strategy
of'appearances, against the force of being and reality. There is
no need to play being against being, or truth against truth
; why
become stuck undermining foundations,
when a light manipu-
lation of appearances
will
do.
Now woman is but appearance .
And it is the feminine as ap-
pearance
that thwarts masculine depth . Instead of rising up
against such "insulting" counsel, women would do well to let
themselv es be seduced by its truth, for here lies the secret of
their strength, which they are in the process of losing by
erecting
a contrary, feminine depth.

.
It is
not quite the feminine as surface that is opposed to the
masculine as depth, but the feminine as indistinctness of
sur-
face and depth. Or as indifference to the authentic and the
ar-
tificial . Joan Riv iere,
in "Feminite sans mascarade" ( La
Psychoanalyse no. 7 ), makes a fundamental claim - one that
contains within it all seduction : "Whether femininity be authen-
tic or superficial, it is fundamentally the same
thing . "
This can be said
only
of
the feminine . The masculine, bycon-
trast, possesses unfailing powers of
discrimination and abso-
THEECLIPTICOFSEX 1 1
l u t e c r i t e r i a for pr onou nc i ng t he t r u t h . The ma sc u l i ne i s c e r -
t a i n, t he fe mi ni ne i s i nsol u bl e .
Now, su r pr i si ngl y, t hi s pr oposi t i on, t ha t i n t he fe mi ni ne t he
ve r y di st i nc t i on be t we e n a u t he nt i c i t y a nd
a r t i fi c e i s wi t hou t
fou nda t i on, a l so de fi ne s t he spa c e
of
si mu l a t i on. He r e t oo one
c a nnot di st i ngu i sh be t we e n r e a l i t y a nd i t s mode l s,
t he r e be i ng
no
ot he r r e a l i t y t ha n t ha t se c r e t e d by t he si mu l a t i ve mode l s,
j u st a s t he r e i s no ot he r fe mi ni ni t y t ha n t ha t of a ppe a r a nc e s.
Si mu l a t i on t oo i s i nsol u bl e .
Thi s st r a nge c oi nc i de nc e poi nt s t o t he a mbi gu i t y of t he fe mi -
ni ne : i t si mu l t a ne ou sl y pr ovi de s r a di c a l e vi de nc e of si mu l a t i on,
a nd t he onl y possi bi l i t y of i t s ove r c omi ng - i n se du c t i on,
pr e -
c i se l y .
THEETERNAL
IRONYOF
THECOMMUNITY
This femininity, the
eternal irony
of the community.
Hegel
Femininity as a principle
of
uncertainty.
It causes the sexual poles to waver. It is not the pole opposed
to
masculinity, but what abolishes the differential opposition,
and thus sexuality itself, as incarnated historically in the mas-
culine phallocracy, as it
might
be incarnated
in the future in
a female phallocracy.
If femininity is a principle of uncertainty, it is where it is it-
self uncertain that this uncertainty will be greatest : in the play
of femininity.
Transvestism
. Neither homosexuals nor transexuals, transves-
tites lik e to play with the indistinctness of the sexes. The spell
they cast, over themselves as well as others, is born of sexual
vacillation and not, as is customary, the attraction of one sex
for
the other.
They do
not really lik e male men
or
female wom-
en, nor those who define themselves, redundantly, as distinct
sexual beings . In order for sex to exist, signs must reduplicate
biological being. Here the signs are separated from biology, and
consequently the sexes
no
longer exist properly speak ing . What
THEECLIPTIC
OF
SEX 1
3
transvestites love
is
th is
game of signs, wh at excites th em is to
seduce th e signs th emselves
.
With
th em everyth ing is makeup,
th eater,
and seduction . Th ey appear
obsessed with games of
sex, but th ey
are obsessed, first of all, with play itself;
and
if
th eir lives appear more
sexually endowed th an our own, it is
because th ey make sex into a total,
gestural, sensual, and ritual
game, an
exalted but ironic invocation .
Nico seemed
so beautiful only because h er femininity ap-
peared so completely put on . Sh e
emanated someth ing more
th an beauty,
someth ing more sublime, a different
seduction .
And th ere was
deception : sh e was a false drag
queen, a real
woman, in fact,
playing th e queen . It is easier
for a non-
female/female th an for a real
woman, already legitimated by
h er sex, to move amongst th e signs
and take seduction to th e
limit . Only
th e non-female/female can
exercise an untainted
fascination,
because s/h e is more seductive th an sexual .
Th e
fascination is lost wh en
th e real sex sh ows th rough ;
to be sure,
some oth er desire may find
someth ing h ere, but precisely
no
longer in
th at perfection th at belongs
to artifice alone.
Seduction
is always more singular and
sublime th an sex, and
it commands th e
h igh er price.
One must not seek
to ground transvestism in bisexuality
. For
th e sexes and sexual
dispositions, wh eth er mixed or ambiva-
lent, indefinite or inverted, are still real,
and still bear witness
to th e psych ic reality
of sex . Here, h owever, it
is
th is
very defi-
nition of th e sexual
th at is eclipsed . Not th at th is
game is per-
verse. Wh at is perverse
is wh at perverts th e order
of
th e
terms ;
but h ere
th ere are no longer any terms
to pervert, only signs
to seduce .
Nor sh ould
one seek to ground transvestism
in th e uncons-
cious or in "latent
h omosexuality. " Th e old casuistry of laten-
cy is itself a product of th e
sexual imaginary of surfaces and
depth s,
and always implies a diagnosis
of symptoms and prog-
nosis for th eir
correction . But h ere noth ing
is latent, everyth ing
calls into question th e
very idea of a secret, determinate
instance
of sex, th e idea th at th e deep
play of ph antasies controls th e
superficial play of signs
. On th e contrary, everyth ing
is played
out in th e
vertigo of th is inversion,
th is transsubstantiation
of
sex into signs th at
is th e secret of all seduction .
1 4 SEDUCTION
Perhaps the tran sv esti te' s ab i l i ty to seduce co mes strai g ht fro m
paro dy -a paro dy o f sex b y i ts o v er-si g n i fi cati o n . The pro sti -
tuti o n o f tran sv esti tes wo ul d then hav e a di fferen t mean i n g fro m
the mo re co mmo n pro sti tuti o n o f wo men . It wo ul d b e cl o ser
to the sacred pro sti tuti o n practi ced b y the An ci en ts (o r the
sacred
status
o f
the hermaphro di te) .
It
wo ul d b e co n ti g uo us
wi th the theater, o r wi th makeup, the ri tual an d b url esque o s-
ten tati o n o f a sex who se o wn pl easure i s ab sen t .
The seducti o n i tsel f i s co upl ed wi th a paro dy i n whi ch an
i mpl acab l e ho sti l i ty
to
the femi n i n e sho ws thro ug h, an d whi ch
mi g ht b e i n terpreted as a mal e appro pri ati o n o f the pan o pl y
o f femal e al l uremen ts. The tran sv esti te wo ul d then repro duce
the si tuati o n o f the fi rst warri o r -- he al o n e was seducti v e -
the
wo man b ei n g n ul (co n si der fasci sm, an d i ts affi n i ty fo r tran s-
v esti tes) . But rather than the addi ti o n o f the sexes i s n o t thi s
thei r i n v al i dati o n ? An d do esn ' t the mascul i n e, i n thi s mo ckery
o f
femi n i n i ty , resci n d i ts status an d prero g rati v es i n o rder to
b eco me a co n trapun tal el emen t i n a ri tual g ame?
In an y case, thi s paro dy o f femi n i n i ty i s n o t qui te as
acerb i c
as o n e mi g ht thi n k, si n ce i t i s the paro dy o f femi n i n i ty
as men
i mag i n e an d stag e i t, as wel l as phan tasi ze i t . A femi n i n i ty ex-
ag g erated, deg raded, paro di ed (drag queen s i n Barcel o n a keep
thei r mo ustaches an d expo se thei r hai ry chests), the cl ai m i s
that i n thi s so ci ety femi n i n i ty i s n aug ht b ut the si g n s wi th
whi ch
men ri g i t up. To o v er-si mul ate femi n i n i ty i s to sug g est
that wo m-
an i s b ut a mascul i n e mo del o f si mul ati o n
.
Here i s a
chal l en g e
to the femal e mo del b y way o f a femal e g ame,
a, chal l en g e to
the femal e/wo man b y way o f the femal e/si g n . An d i t i s po ssi -
b l e that thi s l i v i n g , fei g n ed den un ci ati o n , whi ch' pl ay s o n the
furthermo st b o un ds o f arti fi ce, an d si mul tan eo usl y pl ay s wi th
the mechan i sms o f
femi n i n i ty
to
the po i n t o f perfecti o n , i s mo re
l uci d an d radi cal than al l the i dea-po l i ti cal cl ai ms o f a femi n i n -
i ty "al i en ated i n i ts b ei n g . " Here femi n i n i ty i s sai d to hav e n o
b ei n g (n o n ature, wri ti n g , si n g ul ar pl easures
o r, as Freud sai d,
parti cul ari zed l i b i do ) . Co n trary to ev ery search fo r an
authen -
ti c femi n i n i ty ,
fo r
a
wo man ' s speech, etc. , the cl ai m here i s that
the femal e i s n o thi n g , an d that thi s i s her stren g th .
Here i s a mo re sub tl e respo n se than femi n i sm' s o utri g ht den i al
o f the l aw o f castrati o n
.
Fo r
the l atter en co un ters sy mb o l i c, n o t
THEECLIPTIC OFSEX 1 5
anatomical f ate , one that we ighs on all possible se xuality
. The
ove rturning of this law, the re f ore , can only re sult f rom its parod-
ic re solution, f rom the e x-ce ntricity of the
signs
of
f e mininity,
the re duplication of signs that puts an e nd to e ve ry insoluble
biology, or me taphysics of the se xe s. Make up is nothing e lse :
a triumphant parody, a solution by e xce ss, the surf ace hype r-
simulation of this in-de pth simulation that is itse lf the symbol-
ic law of castration - a transse xual game of se duction .
The irony
of
artif icial
practice s : the pe culiar
ability
of
the
painte d woman or prostitute to e xagge rate he r f e ature s, to turn
the m into more than a sign,
and by this usage of , not
the
f alse
as oppose d to the true , but the more f alse than f alse ,
to
incar-
nate the pe aks of se xuality while simultane ously be ing absorbe d
in the ir simulation . The irony prope r to the constitution of wom-
an as idol or se x obje ct : in he r close d pe rf e ction, she puts an
e nd to se x play and re f e rs man, the lord and maste r
of
se xual
re ality, to his transpare ncy as an imaginary subje ct . The iron-
ic powe r of the obje ct, the n, which she lose s whe n promote d
to the status of a subje ct .
All masculine powe r is a powe r to produce . All that is
produce d, be
it
the production of woman as f e male , f alls
wi-
thin the re giste r of masculine powe r. The only, and irre sistible ,
powe r of f e mininity is the inve rse powe r of se duction . In itse lf
it is nul, se duction has no powe r of its own, only that of an-
nuling the powe r of production . But it always annuls the latte r
.
Has the re , more ove r, e ve r be e n a phallic powe r? This e ntire
history
of
patriarchal domination, of phallocracy, the imme mori-
al male privile ge , is pe rhaps only a story. Be ginning with the
e xchange of wome n in primitive socie tie s, stupidly inte rpre t-
e d as the f irst stage of woman-as-obje ct. All that we have be e n
aske d to be lie ve - the unive rsal discourse on the ine quality of
the se xe s, the the me song of an e galitarian and re volutionary
mode rnity
(re inf orce d, the se days, with all the e ne rgie s of
a
f aile d re volution) - is pe rhaps one gigantic misunde rstanding .
The opposite hypothe sis is just as plausible and, f rom a ce rtain
pe rspe ctive , more inte re sting - that is, that the f e minine has
ne ve r
be e n dominate d, but has always be e n
dominant . The
f e mi-
nine conside re d not as a se x, but as the f orm transve rsal to e v-
e ry se x,
as
we ll as
to
e ve ry
powe r, as the se cre t, virule nt f orm
1 6 SEDUCTION
of in-sexuality . The feminine as a challenge whose devastation
can be experienced
today throughout the
entire expanse
of
sex-
uality And hasn't this challenge, which is
also
that
of
seduc-
tion, always been triumphant?
In this sense, the masculine has always been but a residual,
secondary and fragile formation, one that must be defended
by retrenchments, institutions, and artifices . The phallic for-
tress offers all the signs of a fortress, that is to say, of weakness .
It
can defend itself only from the ramparts
of
a manifest sexu-
ality, of a finality of sex that exhausts itself in reproduction, or
in the orgasm .
One can hypothesize that the feminine is the only sex, and
that the masculine only exists by a superhuman effort to leave
it . Amoment's distraction, and one falls back into the feminine .
The feminine would have a decisive advantage, the masculine
a definite handicap . One sees
how ridiculous it is
to
want to
"liberate" the one in order that it accede to
the fragility of the
other's "power,"
to
the eccentric, paradoxical, paranoid and tire-
some masculine state .
The phallic fable reversed : where woman is created from man
by subtraction, here it is man created from woman by excep-
tion .
A
fable easily strengthened by
Bettleheim's analysis in Sym-
bolic Wounds, where men are said to have erected their powers
and institutions in order to thwart the originally far superior
powers of women . The
driving force
is
not penis, envy, but on
the contrary, man's jealousy of woman's power of
fertilization .
This female advantage could not be atoned ;
a different order
had to
be built at all costs, a masculine social, political and eco-
nomic order, wherein this advantage could be reduced. Thus
the ritual practices whereby
the
signs of
the
opposite
sex are
appropriated are largely masculine : scarifications ; mutilations,
artificial vaginizations, couvades, etc.
All this is as convincing as a
paradoxical hypothesis can be
(and
it is always more interesting; than the received wisdom),
but in the end it only reverses the terms, and so turns the femi-
nine into an original substance, a sort of anthropological
in-
frastructure . It reverses the
anatomical determination, but lets
it subsist
as
destiny - and once again the "irony of femininity"
is lost .
THEECLIPTIC OFSEX 1 7
Theirony is l os t when t he feminine is ins t it u t ed a s a s ex, even
a nd a bove a l l when it is in ord er t o d enou nce it s oppres s ion .
It is t he et erna l il l u s ion of enl ight enment hu ma nis m, which
a s pires t o l ibera t e t he s ervil e s ex, ra ce or cl a s s
in
t he
very
t erms
of it s s ervit u d e. Tha t t he feminine becomes a s ex
in
it s
own
right ! An a bs u rd it y, if pos ed in neit her t he t erms of s ex nor pow-
er.
Thefeminine knows neit her equ iva l ence nor va l u e: it is , t here-
fore, not s ol u bl e in power
.
It is not even s u bvers ive,
it
is
rever-
s ibl e.
Power,
on
t he ot her ha nd , is s ol u bl e in t he revers ibil it y
of t he feminine. If t he "fa ct s " ca nnot d ecid e whet her it wa s
t he ma s cu l ine or feminine t ha t wa s d omina nt t hrou ghou t t he
a ges (once a ga in, t he t hes is of women's oppres s ion is ba s ed on
a ca rica t u ra l pha l l ocra t ic myt h), by cont ra s t , it rema ins cl ea r
t ha t in ma t t ers of s exu a l it y, t he revers ibl e form preva il s over
t he l inea r form . The excl u d ed form preva il s , s ecret l y, over t he
d omina nt form . The s ed u ct ive form preva il s over t he prod u c-
t ive form .
Femininit y in t his s ens e is
on
t he s a me s id e a s ma d nes s . It
is beca u s e ma d nes s s ecret l y preva il s t ha t it mu s t be norma l ized
(t ha nks t o, a mongs t ot her t hings , t he hypot hes is of t he u ncons -
ciou s ) . It is beca u s e femininit y s ecret l y preva il s t ha t
it
mu s t
be
recycl ed a nd norma l ized (in s exu a l l ibera t ion in pa rt icu l a r) .
And in t he orga s m .
The d es poil ment of t he orga s m, t he a bs ence of s exu a l pl ea s -
u re, is oft en a d va nced a s cha ra ct eris t ic of women's oppres s ion .
A
fl a gra nt inj u s t ice whos eimmed ia t erect ifica t ion everyone mu s t
pu rs u e
in
a ccord
wit h t he inj u nct ions
of
a
s ort of
l ong-d is t a nce
ra ce or s ex ra l l y. Sexu a l pl ea s u re ha s become a requ is it e a nd
a fu nd a ment a l right . Themos t recent of t he right s of ma n, it
ha s a cced ed t o t he d ignit y
of
a ca t egorica l impera t ive. It
is
im-
mora l t o a ct ot herwis e. Bu t t his impera t ive d oes not even ha ve
t he Ka nt ia n cha rm of end l es s fina l it ies . As t he ma na gement a nd
s el f-ma na gement of d es ire, it s impos it ion d oes not , no more
t ha n t ha t of t he l a w, a l l ow ignora nce a s a d efens e.
Bu t t his is t o rema in u na wa ret ha t s exu a l pl ea s u re t oo is rever-
1 8 SEDUCTION
sible,
that is to say that, in the
absence or denial ofthe orgasm,
superior
intensity is possible. It is
here, where the end ofsex
becomes aleatory again, that
something arises that can be
called
seduction or delight. Or
again, sexual pleasure can be
just a pretext
for another, more exciting, more
passionate game . This is
what
occurred in The Empire of
the Senses, where the aim
was to push
sexual pleasure
to its limit and beyond -a challenge
that prevails
over the workings of
desire, because it is much
more dizzying,
because it
involves the passions while the
other implies only a drive.
But
this vertigo can be equally
present in the rejection of
sex-
ual pleasure
. Whoknows if women, far
from being "despoiled,"
have
not, from time immemorial, been
playing a game of
their
own by triumphantly asserting a
right to sexual reticence?
If
they have not, from the depths of
their sexual impassibility, been
throwing down a challenge,
challenging men's pleasure
to be
but the pleasure of
men alone? No one knows to
what destruc-
tive depths
such provocation can go,
nor what omnipotence
it
implies . Men, reduced to solitary
pleasures, and enmeshed
within the directives of
delight and conquest,
never did find
a way out .
Who
won this game with its different strategies?
Men, ap-
parently,
all down the line. But it is by no
means certain that they
did not lose themselves in this
terrain and become bogged down
(as in that ofthe seizure of
power) consequent to a sort of
forward
flight that could
neither assure them ofsafety,
nor relieve them
of their secret
despair at what had escaped
them -whatever
their gains or
calculations . This had to end: it
was imperative
that
women have orgasms . Measures
had
to
be taken to liber-
ate them and make them
climax -- therebyending this unbeara-
ble challenge that
ultimately nullifies sexual
pleasure in a
possible
strategy of non-pleasure.
For sexual pleasure
knows
no
strategy: it is only energy
seeking an outlet . It is therefore
quite
inferior to any strategy that uses
it as its material, and uses
desire
itself as a tactical
element. This is the
central theme ofthe liber-
tine
sexualityofthe eighteenth century,
from Laclos to Casanova
and Sade (including
Kierkegaard in Diary ofthe
Seducer), for
whom
sexuality still retains its ceremonial,
ritual and strategic
character, before sinking, with
the Rights ofMan; and psychol-
ogy, into the revealed
truth of sex.
THEECLIPTICOF
SEX 1 9
Here then i s the era
of
the p i l l when s exual p l eas ure i s
decreed. The end of the ri ght to s exual reti cence. Women mus t
real i z e that they are bei ng di s p os s es s ed of
s omethi ng
es s enti al
for them
to
p ut up s o much res i s tance ( al l thos e ghos ts of
"mi s s ed" acts ) to the "rati onal " adop ti on
of
the p i l l . The s ame
res i s tance as that of enti re generati ons to s chool , medi ci ne, s ecu-
ri ty and work. The s ame p rofound i ntui ti on about the
ravages
of an unfettered l i berty, s p eech or p l eas ure. Defi ance, the other's
defi ance, i s no l onger p os s i bl e : al l s ymbol i c l ogi c has been
el i mi -
nated
to
the advantage
of
a p ermanent erecti on and i ts bl ack-
mai l ( wi thout counti ng the tendenci ous l oweri ng of the rate
of s exual p l eas ure i ts el f) .
The "tradi ti onal "
woman's
s exual i ty was
nei ther rep res s ed
nor forbi dden . Wi thi n her rol e s he was enti rel y hers el f; s he was
i n
no way
defeated, nor p as s i ve, nor di d s he dream
of
her fu-
ture "l i berati on . " It i s the beauti ful s oul s who, retros p ecti vel y,
s ee
women
as
al i enated from
ti me
i mmemori al ,
and then
l i ber-
ated . And there i s a p rofound di s dai n i n thi s vi s i on, the s ame
di s dai n as that s hown towards the "al i enated" mas s es s up p os edl y
i ncap abl e of bei ng anythi ng but mys ti fi ed s heep .
It i s eas y to p ai nt a p i cture of woman al i enated through the
ages , and then op en the doors of des i re
for
her under
the
aus p i ces of the revol uti on and p s ychoanal ys i s
. It i s
al l
s o
s i m-
p l e, s o obs cene i n i ts s i mp l i ci ty - wors e, i t i mp l i es the very es -
s ence of s exi s m and raci s m: commi s erati on.
Fortunatel y, the
femal e has never
fi t
thi s i mage. She has
al -
ways had her own s trategy, the unremi tti ng, wi nni ng s trategy
of chal l enge ( one of whos e major forms i s s educti on) . There
i s no need to l ament the wrongs s he s uffered, nor to want to
recti fy them.
No need to p l ay the l over of jus ti ce for the weak-
er s ex. No need to mortgage everythi ng for s ome l i berati on
or
des i re whos e s ecret had to wai t ti l l the twenti eth century to
be reveal ed . At each moment of the s tory the game was p l ayed
wi th a ful l deck, wi th al l the cards , i ncl udi ng the trump s . And
men di d not wi n, not at al l . On the contrary, i t
i s
women who
are nowabout to l os e, p reci s el y under the s i gn of s exual p l eas -
20 SEDUCTION
ure - but th i s i s
anoth er s tory.
It i s th e s tory of th e femi ni ne
i n th e pres ent tens e, i n a c ul -
ture th at produc es everyth i ng,
s nakes everyth i ng s peak, every-
th i ng babbl e,
everyth i ng c l i max . Th e promoti on'of
th e femal e
as a s ex
i n i ts own ri gh t (equal ri gh ts , equal pl eas ures ),
of th e
femal e as val ue - at th e expens e of th e
femal e as a pri nc i pl e
of
unc ertai nty. Al l s exual l i berati on l i es
i n th i s s trategy : th e
i m-
pos i ti on of th e ri gh ts , s tatus
and pl eas ure of women
. Th e over-
expos i ng and s tagi ng of
th e femal e as s ex, and of th e
orgas m
as th e repeated proof of
s ex.
Pornograph y s tates th i s c l earl y A tri l ogy of
s pread, s ens ual -
i s m and s i gni fi c ati on, pornograph y
promotes femal e s exual
pl eas ure i n s o exaggerated a
manner, onl y i n order to better
bury th e
unc ertai nty th at h overs over
th e "bl ac k c onti nent. "
No more of
th at "eternal i rony of th e
c ommuni ty" of wh i c h
Hegel s poke. Henc eforth women
wi l l c l i max, and wi l l
know
wh y. Al l femi ni ni ty wi l l be
made vi s i bl e -woman as
embl emati c
of orgas m, and
orgas m as embl emati c of s exual i ty. No
more un-
c ertai nty, no
more s ec rets . Th i s i s th e
radi c al obs c eni ty th at i s
begi nni ng .
Pas ol i ni 's Sal o, or
a 120 Days -- a veri tabl e
twi l i gh t of s educ -
ti on .
Al l revers i bi l i ty h as been
abol i s h ed i n ac c ordanc e wi th
an
i mpl ac abl e l ogi c .
Everyth i ng i s i rrevers i bl y mas c ul i ne
and
dead. Even th e
c ompl i c i ty, th e promi s c ui ty
between exec uti on-
ers and
vi c ti ms h as di s appeared: i nani mate
torture, perpetrat-
ed
wi th out emoti on, a c ol d
mac h i nati on. (Here one perc ei ves
th at s exual
grati fi c ati on i s trul y th e i ndus tri al
us ufruc t of th e
body,
and th e oppos i te of al l s educ ti on
: i t i s a produc t of
ex-
trac ti on,
a tec h nol ogi c al produc t of
a mac h i nery of bodi es ,
a
l ogi s ti c s of pl eas ure
wh i c h goes s trai gh t to i ts
objec ti ve, onl y
to
fi nd i ts objec t dead) .
Th e fi l m
i l l us trates th e truth th at
i n
a
domi nant mas c ul i ne
s ys tem, and i n every domi nant
s ys tem (wh i c h th ereby
bec omes
masculine), it is
femininit y t hat incarnat es rev ersib ilit y, t he pos-
sib ilit y of play and
symb olic inv olv ement . Salo is a univ erse
complet ely sanit ized
of t hat minimum of seduct ion t hat pro-
v ides t he st akes not j ust of sex, b ut
of ev ery relat ion, including
deat h and t he exchange of deat h ( t his
is expressed in Salo, as
in
Sade, b y t he predominance of sodomy). I t
is here t hat it b e-
comes apparent
t hat t he feminine is not a sex ( opposed t o t he
ot her), b ut what count ers
t he sex t hat alone has full right s and
t he full exercise of t hese right s,
t he sex t hat holds a monopoly
on sex : t he masculine, it self haunt ed
b y t he fear of somet hing
ot her, of which sex is b ut t he
disenchant ed form : seduct ion .
The lat t er is a game, sex is a
funct ion . Seduct ion supposes a
rit ual order, sex and desire a nat ural order. I t
is t hese t wo fun-
dament al forms t hat
confront each ot her in t he male and fe-
male, andnot some b iological
difference or some naiv e riv alry
of power.
THEECLI PTI C OFSEX
2
1
The
feminine is not j ust seduct ion ; it also suggest s
a challenge
t o t he male
t o b e t he sex, t o monopolize sex and sexual
pleas-
ure, a challenge
t o go t o t he limit s of it s hegemony and exer-
cise it unt o deat h . Today phallocracy is
collapsing under t he
pressure of t his challenge ( present t hroughout
our cult ure' s sex-
ual hist ory),
and it s inab ilit y t o meet it . Our ent ire
concept ion
of sexualit y may
b e collapsing b ecause const ruct ed around t he
phallic funct ion and t he
posit iv e definit ion of sex . Ev ery posi-
t iv e form can accommodat e it self
t o it s negat iv e form, b ut un-
derst ands t he
challenge of t he rev ersib le form as mort al . Ev ery
st ruct ure can
adapt t o it s sub v ersion or inv ersion, b ut not
t o
t he rev ersion of it s t erms
. Seduct ion is t his rev ersib le form .
Not
t he seduct ion t o which women hav e
b een hist orically
consigned: t he
cult ure of t he gynaeceum,
of rouge and lace,
a seduct ion reworked b y t he
mirror st age and t he female im-
aginary,
t he t errain of sex games and
ruses ( t hough here lies
t he only
b odily rit ual of west ern cult ure left , all
t he ot hers hav ing
disappeared, including
polit eness) . But seduct ion as an ironic,
alt ernat iv e form,
one t hat b reaks t he referent ialit y
of sex and
prov ides a space,
not of desire, b ut of play and defiance.
2 2 SEDUCTION
This is what occurs
in
the most ban al games of seduction
:
I shy away; it is n ot you who will give me pleasure, it is I who
will
make you
play,
an d thereby rob you of your pleasure .
A
game in con tin uous movemen t - - on e can n ot assume that sex-
ualstrategies alon e
are in volved . There is, above; all, a strategy
of displacemen t (se- ducere : to take aside, to divert from on e's
path) that implies a distortion of sex's truth . To play is n ot to
take pleasure . Seduction , as a passion an d as a game at the lev-
el of the sign , acquires a certain sovereign ty; it is seduction that
prevails in the lon g term because it implies areversible, in deter-
min ate order.
The glamour of seduction is quite superior to ; the Christian
con solation
of
the pleasures of the flesh . On e wan ts us to con -
,
sider the latter a n atural fin ality- - -
an d man y are
driven mad for
failin g
to
attain it . But love has n othin g
to do
with sex drives,
if n ot in the libidin al look of our con temporary culture. Love
is a challen ge an d a prize: a challen ge to the other to return
the love.
An d
to be seduced is to
challen ge the other
to
be
seduced in turn (there is n o fin er argumen t than to accuse a
,
woman of bein g in capable of bein g seduced) . Perversion , from
this perspective takes on a somewhat differen t mean in g: , it is
to preten d
to
be seduced without bein g seduced, without be-
in gcapable of bein g seduced.
The law of seduction takes the form of an un in terrupted ritual
exchan ge where seducer an d seduced con stan tly raise
the stakes
in agame that n ever en ds . An d can n ot en d sin ce the
dividin g
lin e . that defin es the victory of the on e an d the defeat of
the
other, is illegible . An d because there is n o limit to, the challen ge
to love more than on e is loved, or to be always more seduced
- if n ot death . Sex, on the other han d, has a quick, ban al
en d:
the orgasm,
the immediate form
of
desire's realization .
In an alysis, on e can see the extreme dan ger that
may
be
in curred
by a
man who begin s to listen
to a woman 's deman d for sexual pleasure. If,
through her desire, a woman alters the un altera-
bility within which a man can n ot help but'en close
her, if she herself becomes an immediate an d
limitless deman d, if she n o lon ger remain s within
THEECLIPTIC
OF
SEX 23
t h i s enclos ure
and i s no longer h eld by i t , t h e man
fi nds
h i ms elf cas t i nt o a s ubs ui ci dal s t at e
.
A
demand
t h at t olerat es no delay, no
excus e, t h at i s li mi t les s
wi t h regard
t o
i nt ens i t y
and durat i on, s h at t ers t h e
abs olut e repres ent ed by woman, by femi ni ne
s ex-
uali t y, and even by femi ni ne pleas ure
. . . . Femi ni ne
s exual pleas ure can always
be rendered di vi ne
agai n, and
t h us cont rolled, reduced t o t h e cool-
nes s
of marble breas t s , wh ereas t h e demand
for
enjoyment made by a woman
t o t h e man wh o i s
bound t o h er wi t h out bei ng
able t o flee, caus es
h i m
t o los e h i s beari ngs and t h e feeli ng
of pure
cont i ngency . . . Wh en all des i re i s ch annelled
i nt o
t h e
demand for enjoyment , t h e
world t urns up-
s i de down and burs t s as under. Th i s
i s doubt les s
wh y our cult ure h as t augh t women
t o demand
not h i ng i n order
t o i nduce t h em t o des i re
not h i ng . . . '
And
t h i s " des i re, all of wh i ch i s ch annelled
i nt o t h e demand
for
enjoyment " ? Does i t s t i ll concern
woman' s " des i re" ? Is n' t
t h i s a formof
madnes s , wh i ch h as but li t t le t o do wi t h " li bera-
t i on" ?
Wh at i s t h i s new, femi ni ne fi gure
of unli mi t ed s exual de-
mand, an unli mi t ed clai m
t o s exual grat i fi cat i on? Th i s , i n effect ,
i s t h e end poi nt t o wh i ch our cult ure
i s rus h i ng - and Rous t ang
i s ri gh t , i t conceals a form
of s ubs ui ci dal collect i ve vi olence
.
And not jus t for men,
but for women t oo, and for s exuali t y i n
general.
We s ay no t o t h os e wh o love only
women ; t h os e
wh o love only men; t h os e wh o
love only ch i ldren
(t h ere are als o t h e elderly,
s ados , mach os , dogs ,
cat s ) . . . Th e new
mi li t ant , wi t h h i s refi ned egocen-
t ri ci s m, clai ms
a ri gh t t o h i s s exual raci s m. But
we
s ay
no t o
all
s ect ari ani s m. If one mus t become
a
mi s ogyni s t t o be a pederas t ,
an androph obe t o be
1 . Frani ; oi s Rous t ang, Di re Mas t ery
(Balt i more : Joh ns Hopki ns Pres s ,
1 982) ,
pp.
1 04-5 .
24 SEDUCTION
a lesbian, . . . if one must reject the
pleasures of
the
night, chance encounters, and pick-ups in order
to def end oneself against rape, then in the name
of a struggle against certain prohibitions, one has
returned to other taboos, moralisms, norms,
blinkers . . .
Within
our body we experience not one sex, not
two,
but
a
multitude
of sexes . We do not see a man,
or woman, but a human being, anthropomorph-
ic( ! ) . . . Our bodies are tired of all the stereotyped
cultural barriers, all the physiological segregation . . .
We are male and f emale, adults andchildren, f airies,
dykes, and gays, f uckers and f ucked, buggers and
buggered. We do
not
accept
the reduction
of
all
our sexual richness
to
a single sex . Our sapphism
is only one f acet of our sexuality. We ref use'to limit
ourselves to what society demands of us, that is,
that we
be
either
hetero,
lesbian,
gay
the whole
gamut of promotional products . We are unreasona-
ble in all our desires .
Judith Belladonna Barbara Penton
Libd, July 1978
The f renzy of unlimited sex, an exacerbated ventilation of
desire onto demand and gratif ication - doesn't this constitute
a reversal
of
what Roustang described: if until nowwomen were
taught to demand
nothing
in order that they desired
nothing,
are they not
now
being
taught
to demand
everything in order
to desire nothing? The entire black continent decoded by sex-
ual gratif ication?
Masculinity would be closer to the Law, f emininity closer to
sexual pleasure . But is not such pleasure the axiomatics of a
decoded sexual universe - the f eminine and liberating ref er-
ence producedby the gradual enf eeblement of
the Law, the Law
becoming an injunction
to
pleasure af ter having been its inter-
diction . kn ef f ect
of
simulation inverted: it is when pleasure
seeks openly to be autonomous, that it is truly a product of
the Law. Or else the Lawcollapses, and
where the Law disap-
pears,
pleasure is inaugurated
as
a new contract. What does it
THE
ECLIPTIC OFSEX 2 5
matter : nothing
has changed, and the inversion of signs is but
a consequence of strategy.
This is the significance of the present
turnaround, and of the twin
privileging of the feminine and
pleasure over the masculine and prohibition
that once domi-
nated sexual
reason . The exaltation of the feminine
is a perfect
instrument for the
unprecedented generalization and controlled
extension of sexual Reason .
An unexpected fate, one that
cuts short all the illusions of
desire and all the rationalizations
of liberation. Marcuse:
What within a patriarchal system appears
as the
feminine antithesis
of masculine values would then
truly constitute a
repressed social and historical
alternative - the socialist
alternative . . . To do away
with patriarchal society is
to
deny all
the particu-
lar
qualities attributed to women as women,
and
thus
to
extend
these qualities to all sectors
of so-
cial life, to work and
leisure alike. Women's liber-
ation would then be, simultaneously, the
liberation
of
men. . .
Actuels,
G alilde, p.
33 .
Suppose the feminine
liberated and placed at the service
of
a new collective Eros (the
same modus operandi as for the death
drive - the same dialectic aligned
with the new social Eros) .
But what happens if the feminine, far from
being a set of specific
qualities (which it
may have been when repressed,
but only
then), proves, once " liberated,"
to be the expression of an erotic
indetermination, and of the
loss of any specific qualities,
as
much in
the social as the sexual sphere?
The situation
of the feminine was quite ironic in
seduction,
and is j ust as ironic
today in its indetermination and
equivoca-
tion ; for
its promotion as subj ect is
accompanied by its return
as obj ect, that
is to say, as generalized pornography. Astrange
coincidence . Women's liberation
would very much like to cast
the deciding
vote against this obj ectification .
But the cause is
hopeless, for the significance
of the liberation of the feminine
lies in
its radical ambiguity. Even
Roustang's text, which tends
to support the
flood of female demands, cannot
but have a
26 SEDUCTION
presentiment of
the catastrophe that the channelling of
all d esire
into the d emand
for gratification constitutes . Unless one con-
sid ers
the subsuicid al state of men provoked
by this d emand
as a d ecisive argument, there is
nothing that lets one d istinguish
the monstrosity of this
d emand for female gratification from
the monstrosity of
its total interd iction in years past .
Asimilar
ambiguity can be found in the male and
his weak-
ness .
The panic men feel when faced with the
` ,` liberated " fe-
male subject is equalled only by
their fragility before the
pornographic chasm of the
" alienated " female sex, the female
sex object . Whether a woman
d emand s sexual satisfaction " by
becoming conscious of
the rationality of her d esire," or offers
herself in a state of total prostitution -
whether the female be
subject or
object, liberated or prostituted , her sex
is to be
d evouring,
a gaping voracity. It is no accid ent
that all pornog-
raphy turns around the female sex
. This is because erections
are
never certain (no scenes of impotence in
pornography, they
are averted by the
hallucination of unrestrained feminine sup-
ply) : In a sexuality mad e problematic by d emand s to
prove and
d emonstrate itself without d iscontinuity,
the marked position,
the masculine position, will be
fragile . By contrast, the female
sex remains equal to
itself in its availability, in its chasm,
its
d egree zero. The
continuity
of
female sexuality, as opposed to
male
intermittency, is enough to ensure its
superiority at the
level
of
the organic representation of sexual
pleasure, the
representation of end less sex that has come to
d ominate our
fantasies .
Sexual liberation, like that of
the prod uctive forces, is poten-
tially limitless . It d emand s a profusion
come true, a " sexually
affluent society. "
It can no more tolerate a scarcity of
sexual
good s,
than of material good s. Now, this
utopian continuity
and availability can only be incarnated
by the female sex . This
is why in this society
everything - objects, good s, services,
re-
lations of all types - will be ferninized ,
sexualized in a femi-
nine fashion. In ad vertising it is not so much
a matter of ad d ing
sex to washing
machines (which is absurd ) as conferring on
ob-
jects the
imaginary, female quality of being available
at will, of
never being retractile or aleatory.
In pornography sexuality is
lulled by this yawning monoto-
THEECLIPTIC OFSEX 2 7
n y , where flaccid or erect ile men play on ly
a
n omin al
role. Hard
core has chan ged n ot hin g: t he male is n o lon ger in t erest in g
be-
cause t oo det ermin ed,
t oo marked - t he phallus as can on ical
sign ifier - an d t hus t oo fragile. Fascin at ion moves t owards t he
n eut er, t owards
an in det ermin at e chasm, a mobile, diffuse sex-
ualit y . The femin in e's hist orical reven ge aft er
so
man y
cen t u-
ries
of
repression
an d frigidit y ? Perhaps, but more likely , t he
exhaust ion of sexualit y , whet her
it be t he masculin e sexualit y
t hat
on ce n ourished all t he schemes of erect ilit y , vert icalit y ,
ascen dan cy , growt h, product ion ,
et c . , an d is at presen t lost in
t he
obsessive simulat ion of all t hese t hemes -
or
a femin in e
sexualit y , as in carn at ed from
t ime immemorial in seduct ion . To-
day , behin d t he mechan ical object ificat ion of t he sign s
of
sex,
it is t he masculin e as fragile,
an d t he femin in e as degree zero
which have t he upper han d .
We are in deed in an origin al sit uat ion as regards
sexual vio-
len ce - violen ce don e t o t he "subsuicidal" male by un bridled,
female sen sualism. But it is n ot
a mat t er of a reversal of t he hist or-
ical violen ce don e t o women by male sexual force. The vio-
len ce in volved here is relat ive t o t he n eut ralizat ion , depression
an d collapse of t he marked t erm
before t he irrupt ion of t he
n on -marked t erm. It is n ot a real, gen eric violen ce, but a vio-
len ce
of dissuasion , t he violen ce of t he n eut er, t he violen ce of
t he degree zero.
So t oo is porn ography : t he violen ce of sex n eut ralized .
STEREO-PORNO
Take me to your room andfuck:
me. There i s
s omethi ng i ndefi nable i n
your vocabulary; s omethi ng left
; to be
des i red.
Phi li p Di ck
The Schi zos ' Ball
71crni ng
everythi ng i nto reali ty ,
Ji mmy C li ff
The trompe l'oei l removes a
di mens i onfrom real s pace, and
thi s accounts for i ts s educti on. Pornography by
contras t adds
a di mens i onto the s pace of s ex, i t makes
the latter more real
than the real
-andthi s accounts for i ts abs ence ofs educti on.
There i s no needto s earch for the phantas i es
that haunt por-
nography
( feti s hi s ms , pervers i ons , pri mal s cenes , etc. , ) , for they
are barred byanexces s of" reali ty. "
Perhaps pornographyi s only
an allegory, that i s to s ay, a forci ng of s i gns , a baroque
enter-
pri s eofover-s i gni fi cati on
touchi ng onthe " grotes que" ( li teral-
ly, " grotes que" garden art added to a rocky nature
as
pornography adds the vi vi dnes s ; of
anatomi cal detai l) .
The obs ceni ty i ts elf burns andcons umes i ts object
. One s ees
fromup clos e
what one has never s eenbefore; to one's good
fortune, one has never s een one's geni tals
functi on froms o clos e,
nor for that matter,
from
s o
general a pers pecti ve. I t i s all too
THEECLIPTIC OFSEX 29
t r u e ,
t oo
ne ar
t o be t r u e .
And
i t i s t h i s t h at i s
fas ci nat i ng,
t h i s
e xce s s
of
r e al i t y , t h i s h y pe r r e al i t y
of
t h i ngs
. Th e
onl y
ph ant as y
i n por nogr aph y , i f t h e r e i s one , i s t h u s not a ph ant as y of s e x,
bu t of t h e r e al , and i t s abs or pt i on i nt o s ome t h i ng ot h e r t h an
t h e r e al , t h e h y pe r r e al . Por nogr aph i c voy e u r i s m i s not a s e xu al
voy e u r i s m, bu t a voy e u r i s m of r e pr e s e nt at i on and i t s pe r di t i on,
a
di zzi ne s s
bor n of t h e l os s of t h e s ce ne and t h e i r r u pt i on of
t h e obs ce ne .
Cons e qu e nt t o t h e anat omi cal zoom, t h e di me ns i on of t h e
r e al i s abol i s h e d, t h e di s t ance i mpl i e d by t h e gaze gi ve s way
t o an i ns t ant ane ou s , e xace r bat e d r e pr e s e nt at i on, t h at of s e x i n
i t s pu r e s t at e , s t r i ppe d not j u s t of al l s e du ct i on, bu t of i t s i m-
age 's ve r y pot e nt i al i t y . Se x s o cl os e t h at i t me r ge s wi t h i t s own
r e pr e s e nt at i on : t h e e ndof pe r s pe ct i val s pace , andt h e r e for e , t h at
of
t h e i magi nar y
and of ph ant as y - e nd of t h e s ce ne , e nd of
an i l l u s i on .
Obs ce ni t y , h owe ve r , i s not por nogr aph y . Tr adi t i onal obs ce ni t y
s t i l l cont ai ns an e l e me nt of t r ans gr e s s i on, pr ovocat i on, or pe r -
ve r s i on . It
pl ay s on r e pr e s s i on, wi t h ph ant as i e s of vi ol e nce . Wi t h
s e xu al
l i be r at i on
t h i s obs ce ni t y di s appe ar s : Mar cu s e 's "r e pr e s -
s i ve de s u bl i mat i on" goe s t h i s
r ou t e (and e ve n
i f
i t h as
not
pas s e d
i nt o ge ne r al mor e s , t h e my t h i cal t r i u mph of r e l e as e t oday , l i k e
t h at of r e pr e s s i on y e s t e r day , i s t ot al ) . Th e ne w obs ce ni t y , l i k e
t h e ne wph i l os oph y (l a nou ve l l e ph i l os oph y ) ar i s e s on t h e bu r y -
i ng gr ou nds of t h e ol d, and h as anot h e r me ani ng . It doe s not
pl ay wi t h vi ol e nt s e x, s e x wi t h r e al s t ak e s , bu t wi t h s e x ne u -
t r al i ze d by t ol e r ance
. Se x h e r e i s ou t r age ou s l y "r e nde r e d, " bu t
i t i s t h e r e nde r i ng of s ome t h i ng t h at h as be e n r e move d. Por -
nogr aph y i s i t s ar t i fi ci al s y nt h e s i s , i t s ce r e mony bu t not i t s
ce l e br at i on . Some t h i ng ne o or r e t r o, l i k e t h os e gr e e n s pace s
t h at
s u bs t i t u t e
t h e i r ch l or oph y l
e ffe ct s for a de fu nct nat u r e , and
for t h i s r e as on, par t ak e of t h e s ame obs ce ni t y as por nogr aph y .
Mode r n u nr e al i t y no l onge r i mpl i e s t h e i magi nar y , i t e ngage s
mor e r e fe r e nce , mor e t r u t h , mor e e xact i t u de - i t cons i s t s i n h av-
i ng e ve r y t h i ng pas s i nt o t h e abs ol u t e e vi de nce
of
t h e r e al .
As
i n h y pe r r e al i s t pai nt i ngs (t h e pai nt i ngs of t h e "magi c r e al i s t s ")
wh e r e one can di s ce r n t h e gr ai n
of
t h e face 's s k i n, an u nwont -
e d mi cr os copi cs t h at l ack s
e ve n t h e ch ar m of t h e u ncanny .
Hy pe r r e al i s m i s not s u r r e al i s m, i t i s a vi s i on t h at h u nt s down
30 SEDUCTION
seduction by means of v isibil ity. One "giv es you more. " This
is al ready true of col our
in fil m
or
tel ev ision . One giv es you
so much - col our, l ustre, sex, al l in high fidel ity; and with al l
the accents ( that' s l ife! ) - that you hav e nothing to add, that
is
to
say, nothing to giv e in exchange. Absol ute represssion: by
giv ing you a l ittl e too much one takes away ev erything . Beware
of what has been so wel l "rendered," when it is being returned
to you without you ev er hav ing ; giv en it!
A bewil dering, cl austrophobic and obscene image, that of
Japanese quadrophonics: an
ideal l y
conditioned
' room, fantas-
tic technique, music in four dimensions, not j ust the
three
of
the env ironing space, but a fourth, v isceral
dimension
of
inter-
nal
space.
The technical del irium of_ the perfect restitution of
music ( Bach,
Montev erdi, Mozart! ) that has nev er existed , that
no
one has ev er heard, and that was not meant to be heard l ike
this . Moreov er, one does not "hear" it, for the distance that al -
l ows one to hear music, at a concert or somewhere el se, is
abol ished.
Instead it permeates one from al l side' s ; there is no
l onger anymusical space; it is the simul ation of a total env iron-
ment that dispossesses one of ev en the minimal anal ytic per-
ception constitutiv e of music' s charm. The Japanese hav e
simpl e-mindedl y, and in compl ete good faith, confused
the real
with the greatest number of dimensions possibl e
. ' If they coul d
construct
hexaphonics, they woul d do it . Now, it is by this fourth
dimension. which they hav e added to music, that they castrate
you of al l musical pl easure . Something el se fascinates ( but no
l onger seduces) you: technical perfection, "high fidel ity,"
which
is j ust as obsessiv e and puritanical as the
other, conj ugal fidel i-
ty This time, howev er, one no l onger ev en
knows what obj ect
it is
faithful
to,
for
no
one knows where the real begins or ends,
nor understands, therefore, the fev er of perfectibil ity that per-
sists in the real ' s reproduction
.
Technique in this sense digs its own grav e. For at the same
time that it perfects the means of synthesis, it deepens the
criter-
ia of anal ysis and definition to such
an extent that total faith-
ful ness,
exhaustiv eness as regards the real becomes forev er
impossibl e . The real becomes a v ertiginous phantasy of
exacti-
tude l ost in the infinitismal
.
In comparison with, for exampl e, the trompe-l beil , which
THEECLIPTICOFSEX
3
1
saves on one dimension, "normal" three-dimensional space is
already debased and impoverished by virtue of an excess of me-
ans ( all that is real,
or
wants
to be
real, constitutes a debase-
ment of this type) . Quadrophonics, hyperstereo, or hifi
constitute a conclusive debasement .
Pornography is the quadrophonics of sex . It adds a third and
fourth track to the sexual act. It is the hallucination of detail
that rules . Science has already habituated us to this microscopics,
this excess of the real in its microscopic detail, this voyeurism
of exactitude - a close-up of the invisible structures of the cell
- to this notion of an inexorable truth that can no longer be
measured
with
reference to the play of appearances, and that
can only be revealed by a sophisticated technical apparatus . End
of the secret .
What else does pornography do, in its sham vision, than reveal
the inexorable, microscopic truth of sex? It is directly descended
from a metaphysics that
supposes the phantasy of a hidden
truth
and its revelation, the phantasy
of
"repressed" energy and its
production - on the obscene scene of the real . Thus the im-
passe of enlightened thought when asked, should one censure
pornography and choose a well-tempered repression? There can
be no definitive response in the affirmative, for pornography
has reason on its side ; it is part of the devastation of the
real,
of
the insane illusion
of
the real and its objective "liberation . "
One cannot liberate the productive forces without wanting to
"liberate" sex in its brute function; they are both equally ob-
scene .
The
realist corruption of sex, the productivist corrup-
tion
of labour
- same
symptoms, same combat
.
The equivalent of the conveyor belt here, is the Japanese vagi-
nal cyclorama - it outdoes any strip-tease. Prostitutes, their thighs
open,
sitting
on the edge of a platform, Japanese workers in
their shirt-sleeves ( it is a popular spectacle), permitted to shove
their noses up to their eyeballs within the woman's vagina in
order to see, to see better - but what? They clamber over each
other in order to gain access, and all the while the prostitutes
speak to them gently, or rebuke them sharply for the sake of
form. The rest
of
the spectacle, the flagellations, the reciprocal
masturbation and traditional strip-tease, pales before this mo-
ment
of absolute obscenity,
this
moment of visual
voracity that
3
2 SEDUCTION
goes
f a r beyond sexua l possession. Asublime por nogr a phy: if
they could do it, these guys wouldbe swa llowed up
whole wi-
thin the pr ostitute . An exa lta tion with dea th? Per ha ps, but a t
the sa me time they a r e compa r ing a nd commenting on the
r espective va gina s in mor ta l ser iousness, without ever smiling
or br ea king out in la ughter , a nd without ever tr ying to touch
- except when pla ying by the r ules. No lewdness, but a n
ex-
tr emely ser ious, inf a ntile a ct bor ne of a n undivided f a scina tion
with the mir r or of the f ema le or ga n, like Na r cissus' f a scina tion
with his own ima ge
.
Beyond the conventiona l idea lism of the
str ip-tea se (per ha ps ther e might even be some seduction her e) ,
por nogr a phy a t its most sublime r ever ses itself into a pur if ied
obscenity, a n obscenity tha t is pur er , deeper , mor e viscer a l . But
why
stop
with nudity,
or
the genita lia ? If the obscene is a ma t-
ter of r epr esenta tion a nd not of sex, it must explor e the ver y
inter ior of the body a nd the viscer a . Who knows wha t pr of ound
plea sur e is to
be f ound in the visua l dismember ment of mu-
cous membr a nes a nd smooth muscles? Our por nogr a phy still
r eta ins a r estr icted def inition. Obscenity ha s a n unlimited f utur e
.
But ta ke heed, it is not a ma tter of the deepening of a
dr ive ;
wha t is
involved
is a n
or gy
of
r ea lism, a n or gy of pr oduction .
Ar a ge (per ha ps a lso a dr ive, but one tha t substitutes itself f or
a ll the other s) to summon ever ything bef or e the jur isdiction
of signs. Let ever ything be r ender ed in the light of the sign,
in the light of a visible
ener gy.
Let
a ll
speech
be liber a ted a nd
pr ocla im
desir e . We a r e r eveling,
in this liber a liz a tion, which,
in f a ct,
simply ma r ks the gr owing;
pr ogr ess of
obscenity. All tha t
is hidden a nd still enjoys a f or bidden sta tus, will be unea r thed,
r ender ed to speech a nd ma de to bowbef or e the f a cts. The r ea l
is gr owing ever la r ger , some da y the entir e univer se will be
r ea l,
a nd when the r ea l is univer sa l, ther e
will
be
dea th.
Por nogr a phic simula tion : nudity is never a nything but a n ex-
tr a sign . Nudity veiled by clothing f unctions a s a secr et, a m-
biva lent r ef er ent . Unveiled, it sur f a ces a s a
sign
a nd
r etur ns
to
the cir cula tion of signs: nudity de-sign. The sa me occur s with
ha r d cor e a nd blue por n: the sexua l or ga n, whether er ect or
THEECLIPTIC OFSEX 33
open wide is j u s t anot her s ign
in t he hypers exu al panoply.
Phallu s -des ign. The more oneadvances
willy-nilly in s ex's ver-
acit y, in t he expos u re of
it s workings , t he more immers ed one
becomes
in t he accu mu lat ion of s igns , and t he more enclos ed
one becomes in t he endles s over-s ignificat ion of a real t hat no
longer exis t s , and of a body t hat never exis t ed. Ou r ent ire body
cu lt u re,
wit h it s concern for t he "expres s ion" of t he body's
"des ires , "
for t he s t ereophonics
of
des ire, is a cu lt u re of irre-
deemable mons t ros it y and obs cenit y.
Hegel: "Ju s t as when s peaking of t he ext eriorit y of t he hu -
manbody, we s aid t hat it s ent ire s u rface, in cont ras t t o t hat of
t he animal world, reveals t he pres ence and pu ls at ion of
t he
heart , we s ay of art t hat it has as it s t as k t o creat e in s u ch a way
t hat at all point s of it s s u rface t he phenomenal, t heappearance
becomes
an eye, t he s eat
of
t he s ou l, rendering it s elf vis ible
t o t he s pirit . " There is , t herefore, never any nu dit y, never any
nu de body t hat is s imply nu de; t here is never j u s t a body. It
is like t he Indian s aid when t he whit e man as ked him why he
ran arou nd naked: "For me, it is all face. " In a non-fet is his t ic
cu lt u re (one t hat does not fet is hize nu dit y as obj ect ive t ru t h)
t he body is not , as in ou r own, oppos ed t o t he face,
conceived
as alone rich in expres s ion and endowed wit h "eyes " : it is it -
s elf a face, and looks at you . It is t herefore not obs cene, t hat
is t o s ay, made t o be s een nu de. It cannot be s een nu de, no
more t han t he face can for u s , for t he body is - and is only
- a s ymbolic veil ; and it is by way of t his play of veils , which,
lit erally,
abolis hes t he body "as s u ch, " t hat s edu ct ion
occu rs .
This is where s edu ct ion is at play and not in t he t earing away
of t heveil in t he name of s omemanifes t at ion of t ru t h or des ire.
The indis t inct ion of face and body in a t ot al cu lt u re of
ap-
pearances - t he dis t inct ion bet ween face and body in a cu l-
t u re of meaning (t he body here becomes mons t rou s ly vis ible,
it becomes t he s ign of a mons t er called des ire) - t hen t he t ot al
t riu mph in pornography
of
t he obs cene body, t o t he point
where t he face is effaced. The erot ic models are faceles s , t he
act ors are neit her beau t ifu l, u gly, or expres s ive; fu nct ional nu -
dit y effaces everyt hing in t he "s pect acu larit y" of s ex. Cert ain
films are no more t han vis ceral
s ou nd-effect s of a coit al
clos e-
u p; even t he body dis appears , dis pers ed amongs t overs ize, par-
3
4 SEDUCTION
t i a l object s. Wha t ever t he fa ce, i t rema i ns i na ppropri a t e, for i t
brea ks t he obsceni t y
a ndrei nt roduces mea ni ng where every-
t hi nga spi res
t o
a bol i sh i t i n
sexua l excess a nda
ni hi l i st i c vert i go
.
At t he endof t hi s t errori st deba sement , where t he body (a nd
i t s "desi re") a re ma de t o
yi el dt o t he evi dence, a ppea ra nces no
l onger ha ve a nysecret . Acul t ure of t he desubl i ma t i on of a p-
pea ra nces: everyt hi ng i s ma t eri a l i zed i n a ccordwi t h t he most
object i ve ca t egori es. Apornogra phi c cul t urepa rexcel l ence; one
t ha t pursues t he worki ngs of t he rea l a t a l l t i mes a ndi n a l l pl a ces.
A
pornogra phi c cul t ure
wi t h
i t s i deol ogy of
t he concret e,
of
fa ct i ci t y a nduse, a ndi t s concernwi t h t he preemi nence of use
va l ue, t he ma t eri a l
i nfra st ruct ure of
t hi ngs,
a ndt he body
a s t he
ma t eri a l i nfra st ruct ure of desi re. Aone-di mensi ona l cul t ure t ha t
exa l t s everyt hi ng i n t he "concret eness of product i on" or of
pl ea sure - unl i mi t ed mecha ni ca l l a bour or copul a t i on. Wha t
i s obscene a bout
t hi s worl d
i s t ha t
not hi ng
i s
l eft
t o
a ppea r-
a nces, ort o cha nce. Everyt hi ngi s a vi si bl e, necessa rysi gn. Li ke
t hose dol l s, a dornedwi t hgeni t a l i a , t ha t t a l k, pee; a ndwi l l one
da yma ke l ove. Andt hel i t t l e gi rl 's rea ct i on: "Myl i t t l e si st er, she
knows howt o do t ha t t oo. Ca n't you gi ve me a rea l one?"
From t he di scourse of l a bour t o t he di scourse of sex, from
t he di scourse of product i ve forces t o t ha t of dri ves, one fi nds
t he sa me ul t i ma t um, t ha t
of
pro-duct i on i n t he l i t era l sense of
t he t erm. It s ori gi na l mea ni ng, i n.
fa ct , wa s not t o fa bri ca t e, but
t o render vi si bl e or ma ke a ppea r. Sex i s produced l i ke one
produces a document , or a s one sa ys of a n a ct or t ha t he per-
forms (seprodui t )
on st a ge.
To produce i s t o ma t eri a l i ze by force wha t bel ongs t o a not her
order, t ha t of t he secret a ndof seduct i on. Seduct i on i s, a t
a l l
t i mes a ndi n a l l pl a ces,
opposedt o product i on
. Seduct i onre-
moves somet hi ngfrom t he orderof t he vi si bl e, whi l e produc-
t i onconst ruct s everyt hi ng i n ful l vi ew, be i t a nobject , a
number
or concept .
Everyt hi ng i s t o be produced, everyt hi ng i s t o be l egi bl e,
everyt hi ng i s
t o
become rea l , vi si bl e, a ccount a bl e; everyt hi ng
i s t o be t ra nscri bed i n rel a t i ons of force, syst ems
of
concept s
or measurable
energy ;
everything is to be said , accumulated ,
ind exed
and record ed . This is sex as it exists in pornography,
but more generally, this is the enterprise of our entire culture,
whose natural cond ition is obscene: a culture of monstration,
of d emonstration, of prod uctive monstrosity.
No sed uction here, nor in pornography, given the abrupt
prod uction of sexual acts, and the ferocity of pleasure in its
immed iacy
.
There
is nothing sed uctive about bod ies traversed
by a gaze literally sucked in by a vacuum
of transparency
; nor
can there be even a hint of sed uction within the universe of
prod uction, where a principle of transparency governs the
forces
belonging
to the world of visible, calculable phenome-
na - objects, machines, sexual acts, or the gross national
prod uct.
THEECLIPTIC OFSEX
3
5
The insoluble equivocalness
of
pornography:
it puts an end to
all sed uction via sex, but at the same time it puts an end to
sex via the accumulation of the signs of sex. Both triumphant
parod y and simulated agony - there lies its ambiguity. In a sense,
pornography is true : it owes its truth to a system of sexual d is-
suasion by hallucination,
d issuasion of the real by the hyper-
real,
and
of
the bod y by its forced materialization .
Pornography is usually faulted for two reasons - for
manipulating sex in ord er to d efuse the class struggle (always
the old "mystified consciousness") and for corrupting sex (the
good , true sex, the sex to be liberated , the sex to be consid ered
amongst our natural rights) by its
commod ification
.
Pornogra-
phy, then, is said to mask either the truth
of capital and
the in-
frastructure, or that of sex and d esire. But in fact pornography
d oes not mask anything (yes, that
is ind eed
the
case).
It
is not
an id eology, i . e. , it d oes not hid e some truth ; it
is
a simulacrum,
i . e. , it is a truth effect that hid es the truth' s non-existence.
Pornography says
:
there
must be good sex somewhere, for
I am its caricature. In its grotesque obscenity, it attempts
to save
sex' s truth and provid e the faltering sexual mod el with some
cred ibility. Now, the whole question is whether good sex ex-
ists, or whether, quite simply, sex exists, somewhere - sex as
36 SEDUCTION
the body's ideal use v alue, sex
as
possible pleasures which can
and must be "liberated . " It is the same question demanded of
political economy
:
is
there
"good" v alue,
an ideal use v alue be-
yond exchange v alue understood as the inhuman abstraction
of capital - an ideal v alue of goods or social relations which
can and must be "liberated"?
SEDUCTION/PRODUCTION
In r e a l i t y , por nogr a phy i s but t he pa r a doxi ca l l i mi t of t he s e x-
ua l . A" r e a l i s t i c" e xa ce r ba t i on, a ma ni a ca l obs e s s i on wi t h t he
r e a l : t hi s i s t he obs ce ne , i n t he e t y mol ogi ca l a nd e ve r y ot he r
s e ns e . But i s not t he s e xua l i t s e l f a l r e a dy a for ce d ma t e r i a l i za -
t i on? Is not t he a dve nt of s e xua l i t y a l r e a dy pa r t of occi de nt a l
r e a l i s t i cs , t he compul s i on pr ope r t o our cul t ur e t o i ns t a nt i a t e
a nd i ns t r ume nt a l i ze e ve r y t hi ng?
It i s a bs ur d, whe n s pe a ki ng of ot he r cul t ur e s , t o di s s oci a t e
r e l i gi on, e conomi cs , pol i t i cs , a nd t he l e ga l s y s t e m ( i . e . , t he s o-
ci a l a nd ot he r cl a s s i fi ca t or y pha nt a s ma gor i a s ). for t he r e a s on t ha t
s uch a di s s oci a t i on ha s not occur r e d, t he s e conce pt s
be i ng l i ke
s o
ma ny di s e a s e s wi t h whi ch we i nfe ct t he s e cul t ur e s i n or de r
t o be t t e r " unde r s t a nd" t he m . In t he s a me ma nne r , i t i s a bs ur d
t o a ut onomi ze t he s e xua l a s a s e pa r a t e i ns t a nce , a n i r r e duci bl e
gi ve n, a s s ome t hi ng t o whi ch ot he r i ns t a nce s or gi ve ns ca n be
r e duce d . We ne e d a cr i t i que of s e xua l Re a s on, or r a t he r , a
ge ne ol ogy of s e xua l Re a s on s i mi l a r t o Ni e t zche 's ge ne ol ogy of
good a nd e vi l , for i t i s our ne w mor a l i t y . One mi ght s a y of s e x-
ua l i t y , a s of de a t h: " i t i s a ne w wr i nkl e
t o
whi ch cons ci ous ne s s
be ca me a ccus t ome d not s o l ong a go. "
We r e ma i n pe r pl e xe d a nd va gue l y compa s s i ona t e whe n con-
fr ont e d wi t h cul t ur e s for whi ch t he s e xua l a ct i s not a fi na l i t y
3 8
SEDUCTION
in it s e l f , f o r which s e xual it y do e s no t have t he mo r t al s e r io us -
ne s s
o f
an e ne r gy
t o
be l ibe r at e d,
o f an e jacul at io n t o be
f o r ce d,
a pr o duct io n at any pr ice , o r hygie nic audit ing o f t he bo dy. Cul -
t ur e s t hat pr e s e r ve l e ngt hy pr o ce dur e s o f e nt ice me nt and s e n-
s ual it y, l o ng s e r ie s o f gif t s and co unt e r -gif t s , wit h s e x be ing but
o ne s e r vice amo ngs t o t he r s , and t he act o f l o ve o ne po s s ibl e
e nd-t e r m t o a pr e s cr ibe d, r it ual is t ic int e r change . Such pr o ce e d-
ings no l o nge r make s e ns e t o us ; ; s e x has be co me , s t r ict l y s pe ak-
ing,
t he act ual izat io n o f de s ir e in pl e as ur e - al l e l s e is l it e r at ur e .
An e xt r ao r dinar y cr ys t al izat io n
ar o und
t he o r gas mic, and mo r e
ge ne r al l y, t he e ne r gizing f unct io n .
Our s is a cul t ur e o f pr e mat ur e e jacul at io n . Incr e as ingl y
al l
s e duct io n,
al l manne r
o f
e nt ice me nt - which
is
al ways a high-
l y r it ual ize d
pr o ce s s
-
is e f f ace d be hind a nat ur al ize d s e xual
impe r at ive , be hind t he imme diat e and impe r at ive ; r e al izat io n o f
de s ir e . Our ce nt e r o f gr avit y has be e n dis pl ace d t o war ds a l ibidi-
nal e co no my co nce r ne d wit h o nl y t he nat ur al izat io n o f de s ir e ,
a de s ir e de dicat e d
t o
dr ive s ,
o r t o a
machine -l ike f unct io ning,
but abo ve al l , t o t he imaginar y o f r e pr e s s io n and l ibe r at io n .
He nce f o r t h o ne no l o nge r s ays : "Yo u have a s o ul and it mus t
be s ave d, " but :

'
"Yo u have a s e x, and yo u mus t put it t o go o d
us e . "
"Yo u have an unco ns cio us , and yo u mus t . l e t t he
id s pe ak. "
"Yo u have a bo dy, and yo u mus t de r ive pl e as -
ur e f r o m it . "
"Yo u have a l ibido , and yo u mus t e xpe nd it , " e t c.
This pr e s s ur e t o war ds l iq uidit y, f l ux and t he acce l e r at e d ar -
t icul at io n
o f
t he s e xual , ps ychic and phys ical bo dy is an e xact
r e pl ica o f t hat which r e gul at e s e xchange val ue : capit al mus t cir -
cul at e , t he r e mus t no l o nge r be any f ixe d po int , inve s t me nt s
mus t be ce as e l e s s l y r e ne we d, val ue mus t
r adiat e wit ho ut r e s pit e
- t his is t he f o r m o f val ue ' s pr e s e nt r e al izat io n, and s e xual it y,
t he s e xual mo de l , is s impl y it s mo de o f appe ar ance at t he l e ve l
o f t he bo dy.
As a mo de l s e x t ake s t he f o r m o f an individual e nt e r pr is e
bas e d o n nat ur al e ne r gy : t o e ach his de s ir e and may t he be s t
man, pr e vail ( in mat t e r s
o f
pl e as ur e ) . It is t he s e l f s ame f o r m as
THEECLIPTIC OFSEX
39
c a p i t a l , a nd t hi s i s why se x u a l i t y, de si re a nd p l e a su re a re
su ba l t e rn va l u e s . Whe n t he y f i rst a p p e a re d, not so l ong a go,
a s a syst e m
of
re f e re nc e
on t he hori zon of we st e rn c u l t u re , i t
wa s a s f a l l e n, re si du a l va l u e s - t he i de a l of i nf e ri or c l a sse s, t he
bou rge oi si e , t he n t he p e t t y-bou rge oi si e
-
re l a t i ve
t o
t he
a ri st oc ra t i c va l u e s of bi rt h a nd bl ood, va l ou r a nd se du c t i on,
or t he c ol l e c t i ve va l u e s of re l i gi on a nd sa c ri f i c e .
More ove r, t he body- t hi s se l f sa me bodyt o whi c h we c e a se -
l e ssl y re f e r -
ha s no ot he r re a l i t y t ha n t ha t i mp l i e d byt he se x -
u a l a nd p rodu c t i ve , mode l . It i s c a p i t a l t ha t , i n a si ngl e
move me nt , gi ve s ri se t o bot h t he e ne rgi zi ng body of l a bou r
p owe r, a nd t he bodyof ou r dre a ms, a sa nc t u a ryof de si re s a nd
dri ve s, of p syc hi c e ne rgy a nd t he u nc onsc i ou s, t he i mp u l si ve
body t ha t , ha u nt s t he p ri ma ry
p roc e sse s - t he body i t se l f ha v-
i ng be c ome a p ri ma ry
p roc e ss, a nd t he re by a n a nt i -body, a n
u l t i ma t e re vol u t i ona ryre f e re nt . The t wo bodi e s a re si mu l t a ne -
ou sl ye nge nde re d i n re p re ssi on, a nd t he i r a p p a re nt a nt a goni sm
i s bu t a c onse qu e nc e of t he i r re du p l i c a t i on. Whe n
one
u nc ove rs
i n t he body's se c re t p l a c e s a n "u nbou nd" l i bi di na l e ne rgy op -
p ose d t o t he "bou nd" e ne rgy of t he p rodu c t i ve body, whe n
one u nc ove rs i n de si re t he t ru t h of t he body's p ha nt a sms a nd
dri ve s, one i s st i l l onl y di si nt e ri ng t he p syc hi c me t a p hor . of
c a p i t a l .
He re i s you r de si re , you r u nc onsc i ou s : a p syc hi c me t a p hor
of
c a p i t a l i n t he ru bbi sh
he a p of
p ol i t i c a l
e c onomy
. And
t he
se x u a l ju ri sdi c t i on i s bu t a
f a nt a st i c e x t e nsi on of t he
c ommon-
p l a c e i de a l of p ri va t e -p rop e rt y, whe re e ve ryone i s a ssi gne d a
c e rt a i n a mou nt of c a p i t a l t o ma na ge : a p syc hi c c a p i t a l , a l i bi di -
na l ,
se x u a l or u nc onsc i ou s c a p i t a l , f or whi c h e a c h p e rson wi l l
ha ve t o a nswe r i ndi vi du a l l y, u nde r t he si gn of hi s or he r own
l i be ra t i on.
A
f a nt a st i c re du c t i on of se du c t i on. Thi s se x u a l i t y t ra nsf orme d
byt he re vol u t i on of de si re , t hi s mode of bodi l y p rodu c t i on a nd
c i rc u l a t i on ha s a c qu i re d i t s p re se nt c ha ra c t e r, ha s c ome t o be
sp oke n of i n t e rms of "se x u a l re l a t i ons, " onl yby f orge t t i ng a l l
f orms of se du c t i on - ju st a s one c a n sp e a k
of
t he
soc i a l
i n t e rms
of "re l a t i ons" or "soc i a l re l a t i ons, " onl ya f t e r i t ha s l ost a l l sym-
bol i c su bst a nc e .
Whe re ve r se x ha s be e n e re c t e d i nt o a f u nc t i on, a n a u t ono-
4
0
SEDUCTION
mous instance,
it
has
liquidated seduction . Sex today generally
occurs only in the p lace, and
in
p lace of a
missing seduction,
or as the residue and staging of a failed seduction . It is then
the absent form of seduction that is hallucinated sexually -
in the form of desire . The modern theory of desire draws its
force from seduction's liquidation .
Henceforth,
in
p lace of a seductive
form, there; is a p roduc-
tive
form,
an "economy" of sex
: the retrosp ective of a drive,
the
hallucination
of
a stock
of
sexual energy, of an unconscious
in which the rep ression of desire and its clearance are inscribed .
All this (and the p sychic in general) results from the autonomi-
zation of sex - as nature and the economy were once the
p recip i-
tate of the autonomization of
p roduction . Nature and desire,
both of them idealized, succeed each other
in
the
p rogressive
designs for liberation, yesterday the
liberation of the p roduc-
tive forces, today
that
of
the body and sex.
One can sp eak of the birth of the sexual and of sex sp eech
- just as one sp eaks of the birth of the
clinic andtclinical gaze
-
where once there was nothing, if not uncoritroll'ed, unstable,
insensate, or else highly ritualized forms. Where too, it follows,
there wasno rep ression, this thematic with which we have bur-
dened all p revious societies even
more than our own . We con-
demn them as p rimitive from a technological p ersp ective,
but
also
from a . sexual
or
p sychic p ersp ective, for they conceived
of neither the sexual nor the unconscious. Fortunately, p sy-
choanalysis has come along to lift the burden and reveal what
was
hidden . The incredible racism of the truth, the evangeli-
cal racism of the Word and its accession .
Where the sexual does not ap p ear of and for itself, we
act
as though it were rep ressed ; it is our way of
saving it . And yet
to sp eak of rep ressed or
sublimated sexuality in p rimitive, feu-
dal or other societies, or simp ly to sp eak of "sexuality" and
the unconscious in such cases, is a sign of p rofound
stup idity.
It is
not even certain that such talk holds the best key to un-
locking our society. On this basis, that is, by calling into ques-
tion the very hyp othesis of
sexuality,
by
questioning sex and
desire as autonomous
instances, it is p ossible to agree with Fou-
cault and say (though not for the same reasons) that in our cul-
ture too there is no and never has been
any rep ression either.
Sexuality as a dis cours e is , lik e political economy (and every
other dis curs ive s ys tem), only a montage or s imulacrum which
has always
been travers ed, thwarted and exceeded by actual
practice . The coherence and trans parency
of homo
s exualis
has
no more exis tence than the coherence
and trans parency of
homo economicus .
I t is a long proces s that s imultaneous ly es tablis hes the ps y-
chic and the s exual, that es tablis hes the "other s cene, " that of
the phantas y and the uncons cious , at the s ame time as the ener-
gy produced therein -
a ps ychic energy that is merely a direct
cons equence of the s taged hallucination
of repres s ion, an energy
hallucinated as s exual s ubs tance, which is then metaphorized
and metonymized according to the various ins tances (topical,
economic, etc . ), and according
to all the modalities of s econ-
dary and tertiary repres s ion. Ps ychoanalys is , this
mos t admira-
ble edifice, the mos t beautiful hallucination of the back -world,
as Nietzs che would s ay. The extraordinary effectivenes s of this
model for the s imulation of s cenes and energies - an extraor-
dinary theoretical ps ychodrama, this s taging
of
the
ps yche,
this
s cenario of s ex as a s eparate ins tance and ins urmountable real-
ity (ak in to the hypos tatization of production) . What does it
matter if the economic, the biological or the ps ychic bear the
cos ts of this s taging
-
of what concern is the "s cene" or "the
other
s cene" : it is the entire s cenario of s exuality (and ps y-
choanalys is ) as a model of s imulation that s hould be ques tioned .
THEECLI PTI C
OF
SEX 41
I t is true that in our culture the s exual has triumphed over
s eduction, and annexed it as a s ubaltern form. Our ins trumen-
tal vis ion has inverted everything. For in the s ymbolic order
s eduction is primary, and s ex appears only
as an addendum
.
Sex in this latter order is lik e the recovery in an analytic cure,
or a birth in a s tory of Levi-Straus s ; it comes as an extra, without
a relation of caus e to effect . This is the s ecret
of
"s ymbolic ef-
ficacity" : the world's work ings are the res ult of a mental s educ-
tion . Thus the butcher Tchouang
Ts eu whos e unders tanding
enabled him
to des cribe the cow's inters titial s tructure without
ever having us ed the blade
of
a k nife
: a s ort of s ymbolic res o-
42 SEDUCTION
i
luti on th a t, a s a n a ddendum, h a s a pra cti ca l result .
Seducti on too works on th e mode of symboli c, ,
a rti cula ti on,
of a duel*
a ffi ni ty wi th th e structure of th e oth er -sex ma y
result, a s a n a ddendum, but
not necessa ri ly. More genera lly,
seducti on i s a ch a llenge to th every exi stence of th e sexua l order.
And i f our "li bera ti on" seems to h a ve reversed th e terms
a nd
successfully ch a llenged th e
order
of
seducti on, i t i s by no me-
a ns certa i n th a t i ts vi ctory i s not h ollow. Th e questi on of th e
ulti ma te superi ori ty of th e ri tua l l. ogi cs of
ch a llenge a nd seduc-
ti on over th e economi c logi cs of sex a nd producti on sti ll re-
ma i ns unresolved.
For revoluti ons a nd li bera ti ons a re
fra gi le, wh i le seducti on
i s
i nesca pa ble. It i s seducti on th a t li es i n wa i t for th em-seduced
a s th ey a re, despi te everyth i ng, by th e i mmense setba cks
th a t
turn th em from th ei r truth -a nd a ga i n i t i s seducti on th a t a wa i ts
th em even i n th ei r tri umph . Th e sexua l
di scourse i tself i s con-
ti nua lly th rea tened wi th sa yi ng someth i ng oth er ; th a n wh a t i t
sa ys .
In a n Ameri ca n fi lm a guy pursues a street-wa lker,
prudent-
ly, a ccordi ng to
form. Th e woma n responds, a ggressi vely : "Wh a t
do you-wa nt? Do you wa nt to jump me? Th en, ch a nge your
a pproa ch ! Sa y, I wa nt to jump you!"
a nd th e guy, ; troubled, re-
pli es
: "yes,
I wa nt
to
jump you. " "Th en go fuck yourself!" And
la ter, wh en h e i s dri vi ng . h er i n h i s ca r : "I' ll ma ke coffee, a nd
th en you ca n
jump
me. "
In fa ct, th i s cyni ca l conversa ti on, wh i ch
a ppea rs objecti ve, functi ona l, a na tomi ca l, a nd wi th out nua nce,
i s only a ga me. P la y, ch a llenge, a nd provoca ti on a rejust benea th
th e surfa ce. Its very bruta li ty i s ri ch wi th th e i nflecti ons of love
a nd compli ci ty . It i s a new ma nner of seducti on
.
Or th i s conversa ti on ta ken from Th e Sch i zoph reni cs' Ba ll by
P h i li p Di ck:
"Ta ke me to your room a nd fuck me. "
"Th ere i s someth i ng i ndefi na ble i n your voca bu-
la ry someth i ng left to be desi red. " i
One ca n understa nd th i s a s : Your proposi ti on i s
una ccepta -
ble, i t la cks th e poetry of desi re, i t i s too di rect . But ~ i n a sense th e
text sa ys th e exa ct opposi te : th a t th e
proposi ti on h a s some-
*Tra ns. note: In French , th eword duel mea ns both duel /dua l
. Ba udri lla rd i s clea r-
ly pla yi ng on th e double mea ni ng of th e word -a gona l rela ti ons a nd
reci proca l
ch a llenges . I tra nsla te th e term `duel' , even i n i ts a djecti va l form.
THE
ECLIPTIC
OFSEX 4
3
thing "indefinable" about it, which thereby opens the path to
desire. A direct sexual invitation is too direct
to be
true, and
immediately refers to something else.
The first version deplores the obscenity of the conversation
.
The second is more subtle ; it is capable of disclosing a twist
to obscenity - obscenity as an enticement, and thus as an
"in-
definable" allusion
to
desire. An obscenity
too
brutal to be true,
and
too
impolite
to be dishonest - obscenity as a challenge
and
therefore, again, as seduction .
In the last instance, a purely sexual statement, a pure demand
for sex, is impossible. One cannot be free of seduction, and
the discourse of anti-seduction is but its last metamorphosis.
It is
not j ust that a
pure discourse of
sexual demand is ab-
surd given the complexity of affective relations; it quite sim-
ply does not exist . To believe in sex' s reality and in the possibility
of speaking sex without mediation is a delusion
-
the delusion
of every discourse that believes
in
transparency ; it is also
that
of functional, scientific, and all other discourses with claims
to the truth . Fortunately, the latter is continually undermined,
dissipated, destroyed,
or
rather, circumvented, diverted, and
seduced. Surreptitiously they are turned against themselves; sur-
reptitiously they dissolve into a different game, a different set
of stakes.
To be sure, neither pornography nor sexual transactions
ex-
ercise
any
seduction
.
Like
nudity, and like the truth, they are
abj ect . They are the
body' s
disenchanted form, j ust as sex is
the suppressed and disenchanted form of seduction, j ust as use
value is the disenchanted form of the obj ect, and j ust as, more
generally, the real is the suppressed and disenchanted form of
the
world.
Nudity will never abolish seduction, for it immediately be-
comessomething else, the hysterical enticements of a
differ-
ent game, one that goes beyond it . There is no degree zero, no
obj ective reference, no point of neutrality, but always and again,
stakes. Today
all
our signs appear to be converging - like
the
body in nudity and meaning in truth - towards some conclu-
sive obj ectivity, an entropic and metastable form of
the neu-
tral . (What else is the ideal-typical, vacationing nude body, given
over to the sun, itself hygenic and neutralized, with its luciferi-
44 SEDUCTION
an parody of
burning) . But is there ever a
ces s ation of s igns
at s ome zero
point
of
the real or the neutral?
Is n' t there always
a revers ion
of the neutral its elf into a new s piral of
. s tak es , s educ-
tion and death .
What s eduction us ed to lie concealed
in s ex? What new s educ-
tion, what new challenge lies
concealed in the abolition of
what,
within s ex, was once at
s tak e? (The s ame ques tion on
another
plane : What challenge, what s ource of
fas cination, lies concealed
in the mas s es , in the abolition of
what was once at s tak e
with
the s ocial?)
A ll des criptions of
dis enchanted s ys tems ,
all hypothes es about
the
dis enchantment of s ys tems - the
flood of s imulation and
dis s uas ion, the abolition of
s ymbolic proces s es , the death
of
referentials - are perhaps fals e.
The neutral is never neutral
; it
becomes an object of fas cination
. But does it then become
an
object of s eduction?
A gonis tic logics ,
logics of ritual and s eduction
. , are s tronger
than s ex
. Lik e power, s ex never has the las t word
. In The Em-
pire of
The Sens es , a film that from end to
end is occupied with
the s ex act, the latter, by its
very pers is tence, comes to be pos -
s es s ed by the logic of another
order. The film is , unintelligible
in terms of s ex,
for s exual pleas ure, by its elf, leads to
every-
thing but
death. But the madnes s that s eizes
hold of the cou-
ple (a madnes s
only for us , in reality it is a
rigourous logic)
pus hes
them to extremes , where: meaning no
longer has s ens e
and the exercis e of the s ens es
is not in the leas t s ens ual .
Nor
is it intelligible in terms of
mys ticis m or metaphys ics . Its
logic
is one of
challenge, impelled by the two partners
outbidding
each other. Or more precis ely, the k ey
event is the pas s age from
a logic of pleas ure at
the beginning, where the man leads
the
game, to a logic of challenge and death,
that occurs under the
impetus of the woman - who
thereby becomes the game' s mis -
tres s , even
if
at
firs t s he was only a. s exual object
. It is the femi-
nine
principle that brings about. the revers al of
s ex/value into
an agonis tic logic of s eduction
.
There is here no
pervers ion or morbid drive, no
interpreta-
THEECLIPTIC OFSEX 45
tion drawn from our psycho-sexual frontiers,
no " affinity" of
Eros for Thanatos nor any ambivalence of desire. It
is not amat-
ter
of sex, nor of the unconscious. The sexual act
is viewed
as a ritual act, ceremonial
or warlike, for which ( as . in ancient
tragedies
on
the theme
of incest) death is the mandatory denoue-
ment, the emblematic form
of the challenge's fulfillment .
Thus the obscene can
seduce, as can sex and pleasure. Even
the most anti-seductive figures
can become figures of seduc-
tion . ( It has been said of the feminist
discourse that, beyond
its total absence of seduction, there lies a certain
homosexual
allure) . These figures
need only move beyond their truth into
a reversible configuration,
a configuration that is also that of
their death. The same holds true for that figure
of anti-seduction
par excellence,
power.
Power seduces. But
not
in
the vulgar sense of the masses'
desire for complicity ( a tautology that ultimately
seeks to ground
seduction in the desire ofothers) . No, power
seduces by virtue
of
the
reversibility that haunts it, and on which a minor
cycle
is instituted.
No more dominant and dominated, no more. vic-
tims and executioners
( but " exploiters" and " exploited, " they
certainly exist, though quite separately, for
there is no reversi-
bility in production - but then nothing essential
happens at
this level) . No more separate positions : power
is realized ac-
cording
to a duel relation, whereby it throws a challenge
to so-
ciety, and its existence is challenged in
return . If power cannot
be " exchanged" in accord with this minor
cycle of seduction,
challenge and ruse, then it quite simply disappears
.
At bottom,
power does not exist . The unilateral character of
of the relation of forces on which
the " structure" and " reali-
ty"
of
power
and its perpetual movement are supposedly in-
stituted, does not exist . This is the dream
of power imposed
by reason, not its reality. Everything seeks its own
death, in-
cluding power.
Or
rather,
everything demands to be exchanged,
reversed, and abolished within a
cycle ( this is why neither
repression nor the
unconscious exist, for reversibility
is always
already there) . This alone
is profoundly seductive. Power
4 6 SEDUCTION
seduces only when i t becomes a challenge t o
i t self ; ot herwi se
i t i s j ust an exerci se, and sat i sf i es
only t he hegemoni c logi c of
reason .
Seduct i on i s
st ronger t han power because i t i s reversi ble
and
mort al,
whi le power, li k e value, seek s t o be i rreversi ble,
cumula-
t i ve and i mmort al
. Power part ak es of all t he i llusi ons of produc-
t i on, and of t he real ; i t want s t o be real, and so t ends t o
become
i t s own i magi nary, i t s own superst i t i on (wi t h t he
help of t he-
ori es t hat analyze i t , be t hey t o
cont est i t ) . Seduct i on, on t he
ot her hand, i s
not of t he order of t he real - and i s
never
of
t he
order of
f orce, nor relat i ons of f orce. But preci sely f or t hi s
rea-
son,
i t enmeshes all power's real act i ons, as well as
t he ent i re
reali t y
of
product i on, i n t hi s unremi t t i ng
reversi bi li t y and di s-
accumulat i on - wi t hout whi ch t here
would be nei t her power
nor accumulat i on.
It i s t he
empt i ness behi nd, or at t he very heart of power
and
product i on; i t i s t hi s empt i ness t hat t oday gi ves t hem
t hei r last
gli mmer of reali t y. Wi t hout t hat
whi ch reverses, annuls, and
seduces t hem, t hey would
never have had t he aut hori t y of
reali t y.
The real, moreover, has never i nt erest ed
anyone. It i s a place
of di senchant ment , a si mulacrum of
accumulat i on agai nst deat h
.
And t here i s not hi ng more t i resome.
What somet i mes renders
t he real
f asci nat i ng - and t he t rut h as well - i s t he
i magi nary
cat ast rophe whi chli es behi nd
i t . .
Do
you t hi nk t hat power, sex,
economi cs - all t hese real, really
bi g t hi ngs
-
would have held
up f or a si ngle moment unless
sust ai ned by f asci nat i on, a f asci -
nat i on t hat comes preci sely
f rom t he mi rror i mage i n whi ch
t hey are ref lect ed, f rom t hei r
cont i nuous reversi on, t he palpa-
ble pleasure
borne of t hei r i mmi nent cat ast rophe?
The real, part i cularly i n t he present , i s
not hi ng more t han
t he st ock pi li ng of dead
mat t er, dead bodi es and dead language
- a resi dual
sedi ment at i on . St i ll we f eel more secure when
t he
st ock of
reali t y i s assessed (t he; ecologi cal
lament speak s of
mat eri al energi es, but i t conceals
t hat what i s di sappeari ng i s
t he real's
energy, t he real's reali t y, t he possi bi li t y' of
i t s manage-
ment , whet her capi t ali st or
revolut i onary) . If t he hori zon of
product i on i s begi nni ng t o vani sh, t hat of
speech, sex or desi re
can st i ll t ak e up t he slack
.
To
li berat e, t o gi ve pleasure, t o
gi ve
THE
ECLIPTIC OFSEX 47
aspeech,
to give speech to others: this is real,
it is something
substantial, with
aprospect ofstocks. And, therefore,
it is power.
Unfortunately
not. That is to say, not for long. This
"reality"
is slowly dissipating. Onewants
sex, like power, to become an
irreversible instance, anddesire
an irreversible energy (a stock
of
energy -
desire, need it be said, is never far
from capital) .
For we grant meaning only
to what is irreversible: accumula-
tion, progress, growth,
production. Value, energy and
desire
imply irreversible processes -
that is the very meaning of their
liberation. (Inject the smallest dose
ofreversibility into our eco-
nomic,
political, sexual or institutional
mechanisms, andevery-
thing
collapses) . This is what today
assures sexuality of its
mythical authority
over hearts and bodies. But it is also what
lies behind the fragility of sex,
and of the entire edifice of
production.
Seductionis
stronger thanproduction. It is stronger
than sex-
uality, with which
it must never be confused
. It is not some-
thing internal to
sexuality, though this is what it
is
generally
reduced to. It is acircular, reversible
process of challenges,
oneupmanship and death. It is,
onthe contrary, sex that is the
debasedform,
circumscribedas it is by the terms
ofenergy and
desire.
Seduction's entanglement
with production and power, the
irruption of aminimal
reversibility within every irreversible
process, such that the latter are
secretly undermined, while
simultaneously
ensured of that minimal
continuum of pleas-
ure without which
they wouldbe nothing -
this is what must
be analyzed. At the same
time knowing that production con-
stantly seeks to eliminate
seduction in order to establish itself
on an
economy of relations of force alone
; and that sex, the
production ofsex, seeks
to eliminate seductionin
order to es-
tablish itself on an
economy of relations
of desire alone.
This is whyonemust
completely turn roundwhat Foucault
has to say in
TheHistory ofSexuality I, while still
accepting
its central
hypothesis. Foucault sees only the
production ofsex
as discourse. He is
fascinated by the irreversible
deployment
48 SEDUCTION
and i nt e r s t i t i al s at ur at i on of a fi e l d of
s pe e ch, whi ch i s at t he
s ame t i me t he i ns t i t ut i on of a fi e l d of
powe r , cul mi nat i ng i n
a fi e l d of knowl e dge t hat r e fl e ct s (or
i nve nt s ) i t . But fr om
whe nce doe s powe r
de r i ve i t s s omnambul i s t i c funct i onal i t y ,
t hi s
i r r e s i s t i bl e vocat i on
t o s at ur at e s pace ? If ne i t he r
; s oci al i t y nor
s e xual i t y e xi s t unl e s s
r e cl ai me d and s t age d by powe r ,
pe r haps
powe r t oo doe s not e xi s t unl e s s
r e cl ai me d and s t age d by
knowl e dge (t he or y ) . In whi ch cas e ,
t he e nt i r e e ns e mbl e s houl d
be pl ace d i n s i mul at i on, and
t hi s t oo pe r fe ct mi r r or
i nve r t e d,
e ve n i f t he "t r ut h
e ffe ct s " i t pr oduce s ar e
mar ve l ous l y
de ci phe r abl e .
Fur t he r mor e , t he e quat i on
of powe r wi t h knowl e dge ,
t hi s
conve r ge nce of
me chani s ms ove r a fi e l d of r ul e t he y
have s e e m-
i ngl y s we pt cl e an, t hi s conjunct i on de s cr i be d by
Foucaul t as
compl e t e and ope r at i onal , i s
pe r haps onl y t he concur r e nce of
t wo de ad s t ar s whos e l as t
gl i mme r i ngs s t i l l i l l umi nat e e ach
ot he r ,
t hough
t he y have l os t t he i r own r adi ance ?
In t he i r or i gi nal ,
aut he nt i c phas e , knowl e dge and powe r
we r e oppos e d t o e ach
ot he r , s ome t i me s vi ol e nt l y
(as we r e , mor e ove r , s e x and
pow-
e r ) . But i f t oday t he y ar e
me r gi ng, i s t hi s not due t o t he
pr ogr e s -
s i ve e xt e nuat i on of
t he i r r e al i t y pr i nci pl e , of t he i r
di s t i nct i ve
char act e r i s t i cs , t he i r s pe ci fi c
e ne r gi e s ? The i r conjunct i on t he n
woul d he r al d not a r e i nfor ce d pos i t i vi t y ,
but a t wi n i ndi ffe r e n-
t i at i on, at t he e nd of
whi ch onl y t he i r phant oms woul d,
r e mai n,
mi ngl i ng amongs t
t he ms e l ve s , l e ft t o haunt us .
In t he l as t i ns t ance , be hi nd
t he appar e nt s t as i s of
knowl e dge
and powe r whi ch
appe ar s t o ar i s e fr om al l s i de s ,
t he r e woul d
l i e onl y t he
me t as t as i s of powe r , t he cance r ous
pr ol i fe r at i on
of a
di s t ur be d, di s or gani ze d s t r uct ur e . If
powe r t oday i s ge ne r -
al , and can be de t e ct e d at al l l e ve l s
("mol e cul ar " powe r ), i f i t
has be come cance r ous ,
wi t h i t s ce l l s pr ol i fe r at i ng
uncont r ol l a-
bl y , wi t hout r e gar d t o
t he good ol d "ge ne t i c code " of
pol i t i cs ,
t hi s i s
be caus e i t i s i t s e l f affl i ct e d and
i n a s t at e of advance d
de compos i t i on. Or pe r haps
i t i s affl i ct e d. wi t h hy pe r r e al i t y
and
i n an acut e cr i s i s of s i mul at i on
(t he cance r ous pr ol i fe r at i on
of
onl y t he
s i gns
of
powe r ) and, accor di ngl y ,
has r e ache d a s t at e
of
ge ne r al di ffus i on and s at ur at i on
. It s s omnambul i s t i c
ope r a-
t i onal i t y.
One mus t
t he r e for e al way s wage r on
s i mul at i on and t ake t he
THE
ECLIPTIC OFSEX 49
signs from behind - signs t ha t , when t a ken
a t fa ce va lue a nd
in good fa it h,
a lwa ys lea d t o t he rea lit y a nd evidence ofpower.
Just a s t hey lea d t o t he rea lit y a nd
evidence of sex a nd produc-
t ion . It is t his
posit ivism t ha t must not be t a ken a t fa ce va lue;
a nd
it
is t o t his reversion of power in simula t ion
one must de-
vot e one's effort s . Powerwill
never do it by it self, a nd Fouca ult 's
t ext should be crit iciz ed for fa iling
t o do it a nd, t herefore, for
reviving t he illusion
of power.
The whole, obsessed a s it
is
wit h
ma ximiz ing power a ndsex,
must be quest ioned
a s t o it s empt iness . Given it s obsession wit h
powera s cont inuous
expa nsion a nd invest ment , one must a sk
it t he quest ion of t he reversion
of
t he
spa ce of power, a nd of
t he reversion of t he spa ce
of sex a nd it s speech . Given it s fa sci-
na t ion wit h product ion, one must
a sk
it
t he quest ion of
seduct ion .
I I
SUPERFI CI ALABYSSES
V
THESACREDHORIZON
OFAPPEARANCES
Seduction takes from
discourse its sense and turns it from
its truth .
It is, therefore, contrary to the
psychoanalytic distinc-
tion between manifest and
latent discourses . For the latent dis-
course turns the manifest discourse not
from its truth, but
towards its truth . It
makes the manifest discourse say what it
does not want to say; it causes determinations
and profound
indeterminations
to show through in the manifest
discourse.
Depth always peeks through
from behind the break, and mean-
ing peeks from
behind the line . The manifest discourse has
the
status of an appearance,
a laboured appearance, traversed by
the
emergence of meaning. Interpretation is what
breaks the
appearance and play of the manifest
discourse and, by taking
up with the
latent discourse, delivers the real meaning.
In seduction, by contrast, it is
the manifest discourse - dis-
course at its
most superficial - that turns back
on
the
deeper
order (whether conscious or
unconscious) in order to invali-
date it, substituting the
charm and illusion ofappearances. These
appearances
are not in the least frivolous,
but occasions for a
game and its stakes, and
a passion for deviation - the
seduc-
tion
of the signs themselves being
more important than the
emergence of any truth - which interpretation
neglects and des-
troys in its search for hidden
meanings . This is why interpreta-
tion is what, par
excellence, is opposed to seduction,
and why
5
4 SEDUCTION
i t i s t he l ea s t s educt i ve of di s cours es
. Not onl y does i t s ubject
t he doma i n of a ppea ra nces t o
i nca l cul a bl e da ma ge, but t hi s
pri vi l eged s ea rch for hi dden
mea ni ngs ma y wel l be profound-
l y i n error. For i t i s not
s omewhere el s e, i n a hi nt erwel t or
a n
uncons ci ous , t ha t one wi l l fi nd
wha t l ea ds di s cours e a s t ra y.
Wha t
t rul y di s pl a ces
di s cours e, "s educes " i t i n t he l i t era l
s ens e, a nd
renders i t s educt i ve,
i s i t s very a ppea ra nce, i t s
i nfl ect i ons , i t s
nua nces , t he ci rcul a t i on (whet her a l ea t ory a nd
s ens el es s , or ri t u-
a l i zed a nd met i cul ous ) of s i gns a t i t s
s urfa ce . It i s t hi s t ha t ef-
fa ces mea ni ng a nd i s s educt i ve,
whi l e a di s cours e's
mea ni ng ha s
never s educed a nyone . Al l
mea ni ngful di s cours e s eeks t o
end
a ppea ra nces : t hi s i s i t s
a t t ra ct i on, a nd i t s i mpos t ure. It i s
a l s o
a n i mpos s i bl e
undert a ki ng . Inexora bl y, di s cours e i s
l eft t o i t s
a ppea ra nces , a nd t hus t o
t he s t a kes of . s educt i on, t hus t o
i t s own
fa i l ure a s di s cours e
. But perha ps di s cours e i s s ecret l y
t empt -
ed by t hi s
fa i l ure, by t he bra cket i ng of i t s
object i ves , of i t s t rut h
effect s whi ch become a bs orbed
wi t hi n a s urfa ce t ha t s wa l l ows
mea ni ng. Thi s i s wha t
ha ppens a t fi rs t , when di s cours e
s educes
i t s el f; i t i s t he
ori gi na l form by whi ch di s cours e
becomes a b-
s orbed
wi t hi n i t s el f a nd empt i ed of i t s t rut h i n
order t o bet t er
fa s ci na t e
ot hers : t he pri mi t i ve s educt i on of
l a ngua ge .
Every di s cours e i s compl i ci t
i n t hi s ra pt ure, i n t hi s devi a t i on,
a nd i f i t does
not do i t i t s el f, t hen ot hers wi l l do: i t i n
i t s pl a ce .
Al l
a ppea ra nces cons pi re t o comba t a nd root
: out mea ni ng
(whet her i nt ent i ona l or ot herwi s e),
a nd t urn i t i nt o a ga me,
i nt o
a not her of t he ga me's
rul es , a more a rbi t ra ry rul e - or
i nt o
a not her el us i ve ri t ua l , one
t ha t i s more a dvent urous a nd
s educ-
t i ve t ha n t he
di rect i ve l i ne of mea ni ng. Wha t
di s cours e mus t
fi ght
a ga i ns t i s not s o much t he uncons ci ous
s ecret a s t he s u-
perfi ci a l a bys s of i t s own a ppea ra nce
; a nd i f di s cours e mus t
t ri -
umph over
s omet hi ng, i t i s not over
pha nt a s i es a nd
ha l l uci na t i ons hea vy wi t h mea ni ng a nd
mi s i nt erpret a t i on, but
t he s hi ny s urfa ce of non-s ens e a nd
a l l t he ga mes , t ha t t he
l a t t er
renders pos s i bl e . It
wa s onl y a s hort whi l e a go
t ha t one s uc-
ceeeded
i n el i mi na t i ng t hi s s t a ke of s educt i on
(whi ch ha s a s
i t s concern t he s a cred hori zon of
a ppea ra nces ) i n order t o
s ub-
s t i t ut e a s t a ke "i n
dept h," a s t a ke i n t he uncons ci ous ,
or i n i n-
t erpret a t i on
. But t hi s s ubs t i t ut i on i s fra gi l e
a nd ephemera l . No
one knows i f t he rei gni ng obs es s i on
wi t h l a t ent di s cours e one
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 55
finds in psychoanalysis (which in e ffe ct ,
ge ne ralize s t he vio-
le nce of int e rpre t at ion t o
all
le ve ls) ,
if t his me chanism wit h
which one has e liminat e d (or sought t o e liminat e ) all se duct ion
is not it se lf a mode l of simulat ion - a rat he r fragile one t hat
give s it se lf t he se mblance of be ing insurmount able in orde r t o
be t t e r conce al all paralle l e ffe ct s, and most not ably, t he
e ffe ct s
of se duct ion
t hat
are
be ginning
t o
work t he ir damage . For what
is most
damaging
t o
psychoanalysis
is
t he re alizat ion t hat t he
unconscious se duce s : it se duce s by it s dre ams and by it s con-
ce pt ; it se duce s as soon as t he id spe aks and e ve n as t he id wishe s
t o spe ak. Adouble st ruct ure e me rge s, a paralle l st ruct ure of
t he
connivance of t he signs of t he unconscious and t he ir
e xchange ,
which e at s away at
t he ot he r
st ruct ure ,
t he hard, pure st ruc-
t ure of unconscious "labour" and t ransfe re nce and count e r-
t ransfe re nce . The e nt ire psychoanalyt ic e difice pe rishe s of it s
own se duct ion, and wit h it all t he ot he rs .
Le t
us be
analyst s
for one blazing inst ant , and say t hat it is t he re ve nge of t he
re pre sse d, t he re pre ssion of se duct ion, t hat is at t he origin of
psychoanalysis as a "scie nce , " wit hin t he int e lle ct ural
t raj e ct o-
ry of
Fre ud himse lf.
The Fre udian oe uvre unfolds be t we e n t wo pole s_ t hat radi-
cally put int o que st ion t he int e rme diary const ruct ion,
t he se
pole s be ing se duct ion and t he de at h drive. We have alre ady
spoke n
in L'Ecbange symbolique e t la mort of t he lat t e r, consi-
de re d as an inve rsion of t he e arlie r psychoanalyt ic apparat us
(t opical, e conomic) . Re garding t he forme r, which aft e r
nume r-
ous t urns links up wit h t he de at h drive by some se cre t
affinit y,
one has t o say t hat it appe ars
as
psychoanalysis' lost obj e ct .
It is classic t o conside r Fre ud's abandonme nt of
t he t he ory of
se duct ion (1907)
as
a de cisive st e p
in t he e me rge nce of psychoanalyt ic t he ory and in
moving t o t he fore ground t he not ions of uncons-
cious phant asy, psychic re alit y, infant ile se xualit y,
e t c.
Laplanche and Pont alis
Vocabulaire de la psychanalyse
56 SEDUCTION
Seduction, a s a n origina l form, is cons idered rela ted to the
s ta te
of
the
"prima l pha nta s y"a nd thus trea ted, a ccording to a
logic tha t is not longer its own, a s a res idue, a v es tige, or
s creen/ forma tion in the henceforth triumpha nt logic a nd s truc-
ture of ps ychic a nd s exua l rea lity. But ins tea d of cons idering
s eduction's downgra ding a s neces s a ry to ps ychoa na lys is '
growth, one s houd
think
of it a s a crucia l ev ent,
hea v y with
cons equences .
As
we
know,
s eduction
will
dis a ppea r
from ps y-
choa na lytic dis cours e, or will rea ppea r only to be burried a nd
forgotten, in a ccord with a logica l repetition of the founda tiona l
a ct of denia l by the ma s ter hims elf . It is not s imply s et a s ide
a s s omething s econda ry rela tiv e to the more decis iv e elements
like infa ntile s exua lity, repres s ion,
Oedipus ,
etc. ; it
is denied a s
a
da ngerous form
tha t could
well threa ten the dev elopment a nd
coherence
of
the ulterior edifice .
Exa ctly the s a me thing occurs in Sa us s ure a s in Freud. Sa us -
s ure a ls o bega n, in the Ana gra mmes , with a des cription of a
form
of
la ngua ge,
or
more precis ely,
of
its
s ubv ers ion
- a ritu-
a liz ed, meticulous form of the decons truction of mea ning a nd
v a lue . But then he took it a ll ba ck a nd mov ed on to the con-
s truction of linguis tics . Wa s this turn due to the ma nifes t fa ilure
of his a ttempted proofs , or did it inv olv e a renuncia tion of
the
a na gra mma tica l cha llenge in order to underta ke the more con-
s tructiv e, dura ble a nd s cientific dev elopment of the mode of
production of mea ning, to the exclus ion of its pos s ible s ub-
v ers ion? But wha t does it ma tter, the fa ct is tha t linguis tics wa s
born from this irrev oca ble redeployment, a nd it cons titutes
the
funda menta l a xiom a nd rule for a ll thos e who continue Sa us -
s ure's work
.
One does not return to the s cene of,
the
crime,
a nd
the forgetting of the origina l murder is pa rt of the logica l a nd
triumpha nt unfolding of s cience . All the energy of the dea d ob-
j ect a nd its la s t rites pa s s es into the s imula ted
res urrection
of
the liv ing . Still it mus t be s a id tha t Sa us s ure, a t lea s t, ha d the
intutition towa rds the end tha t his linguis tic enterpris e
ha d fa iled,
lea v ing a
hov ering
uncerta inty, the glimps e of a wea knes s ,
of
the pos s ibly illus ory cha ra cter of s o bea utiful a mecha nis m of
s ubs titution . But s uch s cruples , within which one ca n perceiv e
s omething of the prema ture a nd v iolent buria l of
the
Ana gra mmes , would
be tota lly foreign
to
his heirs , who rema in
SUPERFICIALABYSSES
57
content to manage the discipline
without ever touching on the
idea of an abyss of language, an
abyss of linguistic seduction,
a
radically different operation that absorbs rather
than produces
meaning. The
sarcophagus of linguistics was tightly sealed,
and
fell upon the shroud
of the signifier.
Thus the
shroud of psychoanalysis has fallen
over seduction,
the shroud of
hidden meanings and of a hidden excess of mean-
ing, at the expense of the surface
of absorption, the superficial
abyss of appearances, the
instantaneous and panicky surface
of the exchange and rivalry of signs
constituted by seduction
(hysteria being but
a "symptomatic" manifestation of the lat-
ter, one that has
already been contaminated by the latent
struc-
ture of the symptom,
and is thus pre-psychoanalytic, thus
degraded
- which is why it was able
to,,serve as a "conversion
matrix" for
psychoanalysis) . Freud abolished seduction in
order
to put into place a machinery
of interpretation, and of sexual
repression, that offer all the
characteristics of objectivity and
coherence. Assuming that
one disregards all the internal con-
vulsions
of psychoanalysis, be they
personal or theoretical, that
undermine its
beautiful coherence - lest all the
challenges and
seductions
buried under the discourse's
rigour reemerge like
the living dead .
(But doesn't this suggest, so the beautiful souls
will argue, that, at bottom, psychoanalysis
is still alive? ) . Freud
may have
broken with seduction and taken
the side of interpre-
tation (at
least until the last metapsychology
which, very
definitely, moves in a different
direction), but all that was
repressed by this admirable
realignment has reemerged within
the conflicts and vicissitudes
of psychoanalysis' history, and wi-
thin the course of
almost every cure (one is never finished with
hysteria! ) . And it
is not an inconsiderable source of entertain-
ment to see seduction sweep across
psychoanalysis with La-
can, in the wild-eyed
form of a play of signifiers from
which
psychoanalysis - in the
rigour of its demands and in its form,
in the
form Freud wanted - is dying just
as certainly, nay even
more certainly, as from its
institutional banalization .
The
seduction of Lacanianism
is, no doubt, an imposture;
5
8 SEDUCTION
but i n i ts own wayi t
corrects , recti f i es an d aton es
f or the ori g i -
n al i mpos ture of
Freud hi ms elf , that of the f orclos ure
of the
f orm/s educti on to the advan tag e
of a would- be s ci en ce . The
Lacan i an di s cours e,
whi ch g en erali zes the s educti ve
practi ces
of ps ychoan alys i s ,
aven g es thi s f oreclos ed s educti on ,
but i n a
man n er that
i s ' i ts elf con tami n ated by
ps ychoan alys i s . That i s
a
to s ay, the
ven g ean ce always occurs wi thi n
the terms of the Law
(of the s ymboli c),
res ulti n g i n an i n s i di ous s educti on
exerci s ed
i n terms of
the lawan d (of the ef f i g y) of a
Mas ter whorules
by the Word over hys teri cal
mas s es un f i t f or pleas ure . . .
Non etheles s , wi th Lacan i t i s
s ti ll a matter of the death of
ps y-
choan alys i s , of adeath due to
the tri umphan t but
pos thumous
reemerg en ce of
what at the beg i n n i n g was
den i ed. Is n ' t thi s
the f ulf i llmen t of a
des ti n y? At leas t ps ychoan alys i s
wi ll have
had the
opportun i ty toen dwi th a Great
Impos tor af ter havi n g
beg un . wi th a Great Den i al .
That the mos t beauti f ul
con s tructi on of mean i n g an d i n terpre-
tati on ever erected
thus collaps es un der the
wei g ht of i ts own
s i g n s ,
whi ch were on ce terms '. heavy wi th
mean i n g , but have
t
on ce
ag ai n become devi ces i n an
un res trai n ed s educti on , terms
i n an un trammeled exchan g e
that i s both compli ci t wi th
an d
empty of mean i n g
(i n cludi n g i n the cure) - thi s
s hould exalt
an d comf ort us . It i s a
s i g n that the truth at leas t (that
f or whi ch
i mpos tors
rei g n ) wi ll be s pared -us . An d that
what mi g ht appear
as ps ychoan alys i s ' f ai lure i s
but the temptati on common to
ev-
ery: g reat s ys tem of mean i n g , to
s i n k i n to i ts own i mag e
an d
los e i ts s en s e - whi ch i n deed
s ug g es ts the return of
pri mi ti ve
s educti on ' s - f lame
an d the reven g e of appearan ces
. But then
where i s the i mpos ture?
Havi n g rejected the
f orm/s educti on
f rom the
s tart, ps ychoan alys i s -was
perhaps on ly an i llus i on
-
an
i llus i on of truth an di n terpretati on
- that wouldbe con tradi ct-
edan d coun terbalan ced
by the Lacan i an i llus i on of s educti on
.
Thus acycle i s
completed, f rom whi ch perhaps
other i n terrog a-
ti ve an d
s educti ve f orms wi ll
ari s e .
It was the s ame wi th God
an d the Revoluti on . To
di s pel all
appearan ces s o
that God' s truth could
s hi n e f orth was the i llu-
s i on of
the Icon oclas ts . An i llus i on
becaus e God' s truth di d
n ot
exi s t, an d perhaps , s ecretly
they kn ewi t, thi s bei n g
whythei r
f ai lure proceeded
f rom the s ame i n tui ti on as
that of the adorers
i
SUPERFICIAL
ABYSSES 5 9
of images : one can live only the idea of altered truth . It is the
only
way to live in conformity with the truth . Otherwise life
becomes unbearable (precisely because the truth does not ex-
ist) . One need not want to dispel appearances (the seduction
of images) . But if one does, it is imperative that one not suc-
ceed lest the absence of the truth become manifest . Or the ab-
sence of God, or the Revolution. The Revolution, and in
particular its ape-like
travesty, Stalinism, lives only by the idea
that everything is opposed to it . Stalinism is indestructible be-
cause it exists
only
in order to conceal the non-existence of
the Revolution and its truth, and thereby
to
restore
hope.
"The
people" Rivarol said, "did not want a Revolution, they wanted
only its spectacle" - because this is the only way
to
preserve
the Revolution's appeal, instead of abolishing it in its truth .
"We do not believe that the truth remains true once the veil
has been lifted" (Nietzsche) .
TROMPEL'OEIL
OR
ENCHANTEDSIMULATION
Disenchanted simulation: pornography - truer than true -
the height of the simulacrum .
Enchanted simulation: the trompe-l'oeil - falser than false -
the secret of appearances.
Neither fab le, story or composition, nor theater, scene or ac-
tion. The trompe l b eil forgets all this and b ypasses
it
b y
the
low-level representation
of
second-rate ob jects. The latter figure
in the great compositions of the time, b ut here they appear
alone, as though
the
discourse on
painting had b een eliminat-
ed. Suddenly they no longer "represent, " they are no longer
ob jects, no longer anything. They are b lank, , empty signs that
b espeak a social,
religious
or
artistic anti-ceremony or anti-
representation. Scraps of social life, they turn against the latter
and parody its theatricality; this is
why
they are
scattered, jux-
taposed at random . The implication b eing that these ob jects are
not ob jects
. They do
not
describ e a
familiar reality, as does a
still life. They describ e a void, an ab sence, the ab sence of
ev-
ery representational hierarchy that organizes the elements of
a tab leau, or for that matter, the political order. . .
These are not mere extras displaced
from the main scene,
b ut ghosts that haunt the emptiness of the stage. Theirs is not
the aesthetic appeal of
painting
and
resemb lance, b ut the acute,
metaphysical appeal of the real's ab olition. Haunted ob jects,
metaphysical objects, in their un real reversion they are opposed
to the en tire represen tative space of the Ren aissan ce.
Their
very in sign ifican ce is offen sive . Objects without refer-
en ts, stripped of their decor -
old n ewspapers, books, n ails,
boards, an d scraps
of food - isolated, decayed, spectral objects,
disin carn ated from all n arrative, they alon e were able to trace
an obsession with a lost reality, somethin g akin to life before
the subject an dhis acquisition of con sciousn ess. "For the tran s-
paren t, allusive image
that the art lover expects, the trompe Z beil
ten ds to substitute the in tractable opacity
of Presen ce"
(Pierre
Charpen trat) . Simulacra without perspective, the figures in
trompe l' oeil appear sudden ly, with
lustrous exactitude, as
though den uded of the aura of mean in g an d bathed in ether.
Pure
appearan ces, they have the iron y of too much reality.
SUPERFICIAL ABYSSES 61
There is n o n ature in the trompe l beil, n or lan dscapes, skies,
van ishin g poin ts or n atural light . Nor faces, psychology or
historicity. Everythin g
is artifact .
A
vertical backdrop raises ob-
jects isolated from their referen tial
con text to the status of pure
sign s .
Tran slucen cy, suspen se, fragility, obsolescen ce - hen ce the
in sisten ce on paper (frayed at the edges), the letter, the mirror
or watch, the faded, un timely sign s of a tran scen den ce that has
van ished in to the
quotidian
.
The mirror of worn - out boards
whose kn ots an d rin gs mark
the time, like a clock without han ds
that leaves on e to guess the hour : these are thin gs that have
lasted,
in
a time that has already passed. An achron y alon e stan ds
out, the in voluted represen tation of time an d space.
There are
n o
fruits,
meats or flowers, n o baskets or bouquets,
n or an y of the delightful thin gs foun d in (a still) life. Nature
is
carn al, an d a still life is a carn al arran gemen t on a horizon tal
plan e, that provided by the groun d or a table . Although a still
life may sometimes play with
disorder, with the ragged edge
of thin gs an d the fragility of their use, it always retain s the gravity
of real thin gs, as un derscored by the
horizon taln ess . Whereas
the trompe l beil fun ction s in
weightlessn ess, as in dicated by
the vertical backdrop, everythin g bein g
suspen ded, the objects,
62 SEDUCTION
time, even l ig h t and perspective. Wh il e th e stil l l if e uses cl assic
sh apes and sh ades, th e sh adows borne by th e trompe l beil l ack
th e depth th at comes f rom a real l uminous source . Like th e ob-
sol escence of objects, th ey are th e sig n of a sl ig h t vertig o,
th e
vertig o of a previous l if e, of an appearance
prior
to
real ity.
Th is
mysterious
l ig h t with out orig in, wh ose obl ique rays are
no l ong er real , is l ike stag nant water, water with out depth , sof t
to
th e
touch
l ike a natural death . Here th ing s h ave l ong since
l ost th eir sh adows ( th eir substance) . Someth ing oth er th an th e
sun sh ines on th em, a brig h ter star, with out an atmosph ere, or
with an eth er th at doesn't ref ract . Perh aps death il l uminates
th ese th ing s directl y, and th at is th eir sol e
meaning ? Th ese
sh adows do
not move with th e sun; th ey do not g row with th e
evening ; with out movement, th ey appear as an inevitabl e edg -
ing . Not
th e resul t of
ch iaroscuro, nor a skil f ul dial ectic of l ig h t
and sh adow ( f or th ese are stil l painterl y ef f ects), th ey sug g est
th e transparency of objects to a bl ack sun.
One senses th at th ese objects are approach ing
th e bl ack h ol e
f rom wh ich , f or us, real ity, th e real worl d, and normal time
emerg e . With th is f orward decentering ef f ect, th is advance
towards th e subject of a mirror object, it is th e appearance of
th e doubl e,
in
th e g uise of
trivial objects, th at creates th e ef -
f ect of
seduction, th e startl ing impression ch aracteristic of th e
trompe l beil : a tactil e vertig o th at recounts th e subject's insane
desire to obl iterate h is ownimag e, and th ereby vanish
. For real ity
g rips us onl y wh en we l ose oursel ves in it, or wh en it reap-
pears as our own, h al l ucinated death .
A. vag ue ph ysical
wish
to g rasp
th ing s, but wh ich h aving been
suspended, becomes
metaph ysical : th e objects of th e trompe
l oeil h ave someth ing of th e same: f antastic vivacity as th e ch il d's
discovery of h is own imag e, an unmediated h al l ucination
an-
terior to th e perceptual order
.
If th ere is a miracl e of trompe l beil , it does not l ie in th e
real ism of its execution, l ike th e g rapes of Zeuxis
wh ich ap-
peared so real th at birds came to peck at th em . Th is is absurd .
Miracl es never resul t f rom a surpl us of real ity but, on th e con-
trary, f rom a sudden break in real ity and th e g iddiness of f eel -
ing onesel f f al l . It is th is l oss of real ity th at
th e surreal f amil iarity
of objects
transl ates . With th e disinteg ration of th is h ierarch i-
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 6
3
cal organization of space that privileges the eye and vision, of
this perspectival simulation - for it is merely a simulacrum -
something emerges that, for want of something b etter, we ex-
press in terms of touch, a tactile hyperpresence of things, " as
though one could hold them :" But this tactile fantasy has noth-
ing to do with our sense of touch ; it is a metaphor for the " sei-
zure"
resulting
from the annihilation of the scene and space
of representation . Suddenly this seizure reb ounds
onto
the
so-
called " real" world, to reveal that this " reality" is naught b ut
a staged world, ob jectified in accord with the rules of perspec-
tive. " Reality" appears as a principle, one that defines the paint-
ing, sculpture and architecture of the period, b ut a principle
nonetheless - that is, a simulacrum which the experimental
hypersimulation
of the trompe l b eil) undermines.
The trompe l oeil does not seek to confuse itself with the
real
.
Consciously produced b y means of play and artifice,
it
presents itself as a simulacrum . By mimicking the third dimen-
sion, it questions the reality of this dimension, and b y mimicking
and exceeding the effects of the real, it radically questions the
reality principle
.
The real is relinquished b y the very excess of its appearances .
The ob jects resemb le themselves
too
much, this resemb lance
b eing like a second state ; and b y virtue of this allegorical resem-
b lance, and of the diagonal lighting, they point to the irony of
too much reality.
Depth appears to have b een turned inside out. While the
Renaissance organized all space in accord with a distant vanish-
ing point, perspective in the trompe l b eil is, in a sense, projected
forward. Instead of fleeing b efore the panoramic sweep of the
eye ( the privilege of panoptic vision), the ob jects " fool" the
eye ( " trompent Z b eil) b y a sort of internal depth - not b y caus-
ing one to b elieve in a world that
does
not exist, b ut b y under-
mining the privileged position of the gaze. The eye, instead of
generating
a space that spreads out, is b ut the
internal vanish-
ing point for a convergence of ob jects. Adifferent universe oc-
cupies the foreground, a universe without horizon
or
64 SEDUCTION
h o r i z o n t a l i t y , l i k e a n o pa que mi r r o r pl a ce d be fo r e t h e e y e , wi t h
n o t h i n g be h i n d i t . Th i s i s, pr o pe r l y spe a k i n g, t h e r e a l m o f a p-
pe a r a n ce s, wh e r e t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t o se e , wh e r e t h i n gs se e y o u
.
Th e y do n o t fl e e be fo r e y o ur
ga z e , but po si t i o n t h e mse l ve s i n
fr o n t o f y o u,
wi t h
a
l i gh t
t h a t se e ms t o co me
fr o m a n o t h e r
wo r l d, wi t h sh a do ws t h a t n e ve r qui t e gi ve t h e m a t r ue t h i r d
di me n si o n . Fo r t h i s di me n si o n , t h a t o f pe r spe ct i ve , a l wa y s
i n -
di ca t e s t h e ba d co n sci e n ce o f t h e si gn r e l a t i ve t o r e a l i t y - a ba d
co n sci e n ce t h a t h a s e a t e n a wa y a t a l l pa i n t i n g
si n ce t h e
Re n a i ssa n ce .
Wh e n ce i n de pe n de n t o f t h e
a e st h e t i c pl e a sur e , co me s t h e
un ca n n i n e ss o f t h e t r o mpe
l ' o e i l - t h e st r a n ge l i gh t i t ca st s o n
t h i s e n t i r e l y n e w, we st e r n r e a l i t y wh i ch e me r ge d t r i umph a n t
wi t h t h e Re n a i ssa n ce . Th e t r o mpe Z be i l i s t h e i r o n i c si mul a cr um
o f t h a t r e a l i t y. It i s wh a t sur r e a l i sm wa s t o t h e fun ct i o n a l i st r e vo -
l ut i o n o f t h e e a r l y t we n t i e t h ce n t ur y
-
sur r e a l i sm
be i n g but a n
i r o n i c r e ve r i e o n t h e pr i n ci pl e o f fun ct i o n a l i t y. An d l i k e
t r o mpe
l
o e i l
sur r e a l i sm i s n o t qui t e pa r t o f a r t o r a r t h i st o r y , fo r t h e i r
co n ce r n i s wi t h a me t a ph y si ca l di me n si o n , a n d n o t
wi t h ma t -
t e r s o f st y l e . Th e y a t t a ck o ur se n se o f r e a l i t y o r fun ct i o n a l i t y
a n d,
t h e r e fo r e , o ur se n se
o f
co n sci o usn e ss . Th e y se e k o ut t h e
wr o n g o r r e ve r se si de o f t h i n gs, a n d un de r mi n e t h e wo r l d' s a p-
pa r e n t fa ct ua l i t y . Th i s i s wh y t h e pl e a sur e t h a t t h e y gi ve us, t h e i r
se duct i ve n e ss, h o we ve r sma l l , i s r a di ca l ; fo r i t co me s
fr o m a
r a di ca l sur pr i se bo r n e o f a ppe a r a n ce s,
fr o m a l i fe pr i o r t o t h e
mo de o f pr o duct i o n o f t h e r e a l wo r l d.
Th e t r o mpe l o e i l i s n o l o n ge r co n fi n e d t o pa i n t i n g .
Li k e st uc-
co , i t s
co n t e mpo r a r y ,
i t ca n do
a n y t h i n g, mi mi c
o r
pa r o dy a n y -
t h i n g. It h a s be co me t h e pr o t o t y pe fo r t h e ma l e vo l e n t use o f
a ppe a r a n ce s. Wh a t be ga n a s a ga me t o o k o n fa n t a st i c
di me n -
si o n s i n t h e XVIt h ce n t ur y , a n d e n de d up e l i mi n a t i n g t h e bo un d-
a r i e s be t we e n pa i n t i n g, scul pt ur e a n d a r ch i t e ct ur e . In t h e mur a l s
a n d ce i l i n g pa i n t i n gs o f t h e Re n a i ssa n ce a n d Ba r o que ,
pa i n t i n g
a n d scul pt ur e co n ve r ge . In t h e t r o mpe Z ' o e i l mur a l s a n d st r e e t s
o f Lo s An ge l e s, a r ch i t e ct ur e i s de ce i ve d a n d de fa ce d
by i l l u-
si o n
. Th e se duct i o n o f spa ce by t h e si gn s o f spa ce . Ha vi n g sa i d
so muchabout the production of space, is it not time to speak
about its seduction?
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 65
And
about
the
seduction of pol itical space. For exampl e. the
studiol os of the Duke
of
Urbino
and Federigo da
Montefel tre
in the ducal pal ace of Urbino and Gubbio : tiny sanctuaries en-
tirel y in trompe Z ' oeil at the heart of the immense space of the
pal ace. The l atter exempl ifies the triumph of an architectural
perspective, of a space depl oyed according to the rul es, whil e
the studiol o appears as an inverted microcosm. Cut off from
the rest
of
the structure, without
windows,
l iteral l y without
space - here space is, actual ized by simul ation . If the pal ace
as a
whol e
constitutes the architectural act par excel l ence, the
manifest discourse
of
art (and power), then what
is
one
to
make
of the miniscul e studiol o that adjoins the chapel l ike yet another
sacred pl ace, but with an air of bewitchment? It is not cl ear
what is happening with regard to space, and consequentl y, to
the entire system
of
representations that gives order to the pal ace
and republ ic.
It is a privatissime space, the prerogative of the Prince, l ike
incest and transgression were once kingl y prerogatives .
A
com-
pl ete reversal of the rul es of the game is in effect here, al l ow-
ing us
to
surmise ironical l y, by the al l egory
of
the trompe Z ' oeil ,
that the external space, that of the pal ace, and beyond it, the
city, that is, the pol itical space, the l ocus of power, is itsel f
perhaps onl y an effect of perspective. Such a dangerous secret,
such a radical hypothesis, the Prince must keep to
himsel f in
the strictest secrecy
: for
it
is the very secret of his
power.
Since Machiavel l i pol iticians have perhaps al ways known that
the mastery of a simul ated space is at the source of
their pow-
er,
that pol itics is not a real activity, but a simul ation model ,
whose manifest acts are but actual ized impressions . It is this
bl ind spot within the pal ace, cut off from architecture and publ ic
l ife, whichin a sense reigns supreme, not by direct determina-
tion,
but by a sort of
internal reversion,
by an abrogation of
the rul es enacted in secret, as in primitive ritual s . Ahol e in real -
ity, an
ironic transfiguration,
an exact simul acrum hidden
at the
66
SEDUCTION
heart of real i ty , and on whi ch the l atter depends for i ts func-
ti oni ng . Thi s i s the secret of appearances.
Thus the Pope, the Grand Inq ui si tor, the great Jesui ts and the-
ol ogi ans al l knew that Goddi d not exi st ; thi s was thei r secret,
and the secret of thei r strength . Si mi l arl y Montefel tre's studi o-
l o i n trompe l 'oei l secretl y suggests that, i n the l ast i nstance,
real i ty does not exi st, that "real " i n-depth space,
i ncl udi ng
po-
l i ti cal
space,
i s al way s potenti al l y reversi bl e - the secret that
once commanded pol i ti cs, but whi ch have si nce been l ost i n
the i l l usi on of the masses' "real i ty . "
I'LL BE YOURMIRROR
In the trompe Zoeil,whethera mirrororpainting,we
are
bewitched by the spellof the
missing dimension . It is the lat-
ter
that establishes the space of seduction and becomes a source
of vertigo. Forif the divine mission of all
things
is to
find their
meaning,ortofind a structure on which tobase theirmean-
ing,they alsoseek,by
virtue
of
a diabolicalnostalgia, tolose
themselves in appearances,in the seduction of theirimage.
That
it tosay,they seek tounite what should be
separated intoa sin-
gle effect of
death and seduction . Narcissus .
Seduction cannot possibly be represented,
because in seduc-
tion
the distance between the realand its double,and the dis-
tortion between the Same and the
Other,is abolished. Bending
overa poolof water, Narcissus quenches his thirst . His image
is nolonger"other; " it is a surface
that absorbs and seduces
him,which he can approach but neverpass beyond.
Forthere
is nobeyond,j ust as there is noreflexive distance
between him
and his image. The mirrorof wateris not a surface of reflec-
tion, but of absorption
.
This
is
why of allthe great figures of seduction in mytholo-
gy and art - whoseduce by a look,a
song,
an
absence,by rouge,
beauty ormonstrosity,by masks ormadness,by
theirfame,but
also
theirfailure and death - Narcissus stands out with singu-
larforce .
68 SEDUCTION
Not a mirror-reflection, in which the
subject
finds himself
transformed - not a mirror phase, in which the
subject estab-
lishes himself within the imaginary. A ll . this belongs to the psy-
chological
domain of alterity and identity, not seduction .
A ll reflection theory is
impoverished, particularly the idea
that seduction is rooted in the attraction of lik e
to
lik e, in a mi-
metic exaltation of one's own image, or an ideal mirage of resem-
blance . Thus Vincent Descombes, in L'Inconscient malgre lui,
writes :
What seduces is not some feminine
wile, but the
fact that it is directed at you. It is seductive to be
seduced, and
consequently, it is being seduced that
is seductive. In other
words, the being seduced
finds himself in the person seducing. What the per-
son seduced sees in the one whoseduces him, the
unique object of his fascination, is his own seduc-
tive, charming self, his
lovable self-image . . .
It is always a matter of self-seduction and its psychological
vicissitudes .
In
the narcissistic myth, however, the mirror does
not exist so that Narcissus
can
find
within himself some living
ideal . It is a matter of the mirror as an
absence of depth, as a
superficial abyss, which others find seductive and vertiginous
only
because they are each the first to be swallowed up in it.
A ll
seduction in this sense is narcissistic, and its secret lies
with this mortal
absorption . Thus women, being closer to this
other, hidden mirror (with which they
shroud
their
image and
body) are also closer to the effects of seduction . Men, by con-
trast,
have depth, butno secrets ; hence their power and fragility.
If seduction does not proceed from
some ideal mirage of the
subject, nor does it result from the mirror
ideal of death. In
Pausanias' version :
Nark issos had a twin
sister, they were exactly the
same to look at with just the same hairstyle and
the same
clothes, and they even used to go hunt-
ing together. Nark issos
was
in
love with his sister,
and when she died he used
to
visit the spring ;
he
knewthat what he sawwas hi s ownr ef l ec ti on, but
even so he f ound some r el i ef i n tel l i ng hi msel f i t
was hi s si ster ' s i mag e.
Gui de to Gr eec e. Vol . I , p. 376
Ac c or di ng
to
H. -P
Jeudy, whoac c epts thi s ver si on, Nar c i s-
sus seduc es hi msel f , and c onquer s hi s power of seduc ti on,
onl y
by embr ac i ng mi meti c al l y the l ost
i mag e, r estor ed by hi s own
f ac e, of hi s dec eased twi n si ster
.
But i s a mi meti c
r el ati on wi th the i mag e of the dec eased r eal l y
nec essar y to
i nvesti g ate nar c i ssi sti c ver ti g o? I n tr uth,
the l atter
has noneed of
a twi nr ef r ac ti on. I ts owni l l usi on wi l l do-
whi c h
i s per haps
the i l l usi on of i ts own death . Per haps death
i s al -
ways i nc estuous - a f ac t that woul d
onl y add to i ts spel l . The
"soul si ster " i s
i ts spi r i tual i z ed ver si on. Theg r eat stor i es of seduc -
ti on, that of Phaedr a or I sol de, ar e stor i es of
i nc est, and al ways
end i n death . What ar e we to
c onc l ude, i f not that death i tsel f
awai ts us i n the ag e-ol d
temptati on of i nc est, i nc l udi ng i n the
i nc estuous
r el ati on wemai ntai n wi th our owni mag e?
Wear e
seduc ed
by the l atter bec ause i t c onsol es us wi th
the i mmi nent
death of
our sac r i l eg ous exi stenc e. Our mor tal
sel f -absor pti on
wi th our i mag ec onsol es us f or the i r r ever si bi l i ty
of our havi ng
been bor n and
havi ng
to
r epr oduc e. I t i s by thi s sensual , i n-
c estuous tr ansac ti on wi th our
i mag e, our doubl e, andour death,
that we g ai n our power of seduc ti on
.
SUPERFI CI ALABYSSES 69
"I ' l l beyour
mi r r or " does not si g ni f y "' I ' l l be your r ef l ec -
ti on" but
"I ' l l
be
your dec epti on. "
To
seduc e i s to di e as r eal i ty and r ec onsti tute
onesel f as i l -
l usi on. I t i s to be taken
i n by one' s own i l l usi on and move
i n
an enc hanted
wor l d
.
I t i s the power of the seduc ti ve woman
whotakes her sel f f or her owndesi r e, and
del i g hts i n the sel f -
dec epti on i n whi c h other s,
i n thei r tur n, wi l l be c aug ht . Nar -
c i ssus too l oses
hi msel f i n hi s own i l l usor y i mag e; that i s why
he tur ns f r om hi s tr uth, and by hi s
exampl etur ns other s f r om
thei r tr uth - and so bec omes a model of l ove.
Thestr ateg y of seduc ti on i s oneof dec epti on
. I t l i es i n wai t
70 SEDUCTION
for a l l tha t tends to confuse i tsel f wi th i ts rea l i ty . And i t
i s poten-
ti a l l y
a source of fa bul ous strength . For i f producti on ca n onl y
produce objects
or rea l si gns, a nd thereby obta i n some power ;
seducti on, by produci ng onl y
i l l usi ons, obta i ns a l l powers, i n-
cl udi ng the power to return
producti on a nd rea l i ty to thei r fun-
da menta l i l l usi on .
It even l i es i n wa i t for the unconsci ous a nd desi re, by turn-
i ng
them i nto a mi rror of the unconsci ous a nd desi re. For the
l a tter concerns onl y dri ves
a nd thei r gra ti fi ca ti on ; whi l e the en-
cha ntment begi ns onl y a fter
one ha s been ta ken i n by one's
desi re. It i s the i l l usi on
tha t, ha ppi l y , sa ves us from "psy chi c
rea l i ty. " And i t i s the i l l usi on of psy choa na l y si s, whi ch
confuses
i tsel f wi th i ts own desi re for psy choa na l y si s a nd thereby enters
i nto seducti on, i nto a uto-seducti on, refra cti ng the
l a tter's power
for
i ts own ends .
Thus a l l sci ence,
rea l i ty , a nd producti on onl y 'postpone the
due da te of seducti on, whi ch shi nes
a s non-sense, a s the sen-
sua l a nd i ntel l i gi bl e form of non-sense, i n the sky
of
thei r
desi re.
The
decepti on's ra i son d etre. Li ke the ha wk tha t
returns to a pi ece
of red l ea ther i n the form of a
bi rd, i s i t not the sa me i l l usi on tha t, wi thi n repe-
ti ti on, confers a n a bsol ute rea l i ty onto the,
object
tha t wi ns?
Bey ond a l l questi on of bel i ef, Wa rra nt-
ed or unwa rra nted,
the decepti on i s, i n a sense,
recogni ti on
of
the
endl ess power of seducti on . Na r-
ci ssus, ha vi ng
l ost hi s twi n si ster, mourns her l oss,
by consti tuti ng hi s own
fa ce i nto a n i l l usory a t-
tra cti on . Nei ther consci ous nor
unconsci ous, the
dupery i s ful l y pl a y ed out a nd suffi ci ent unto i tsel f .
H. I? Jeudy
The decepti on ca n be i nscri bed i n
the sky ; i ts power wi l l not
be di mi ni shed
.
Every
si gn of the Zodi a c ha s i ts form of seduc-
ti on . For we a l l seek the fa vour
of
a mea ni ngl ess
fa te, a nd pl a ce
our hopes i n the spel l tha t mi ght resul t from
some a bsol utel y
i rra ti ona l
conjuncture - here l i es the strength of. of the horo-
scope a nd zodi a ca l si gns
.
No one
shoul d l a ugh a t : a strol ogy , for
he who no l onger seeks to seduce the sta rs
i s
the
sa dder for
i
SUPERFICIAL
ABYSSES 7
1
i t . In e f f e c t , many ape rson's mi sf ort une c ome s f rom t he i r not
havi ng
a plac e i n t he sk y, wi t hi n af i e ld of si gns t hat would agre e
wi t h t he m -t hat i s t o say, i n t he last i nst anc e , f rom t he i r not
havi ng be e n
se d uc e d by
t he i r
bi rt h and i t s c onst e llat i on
.
The y
wi ll be ar t hi s f at e f or li f e , and t he i r ve ry
d e at h
wi ll
c ome at
t he
wrong
t i me . To f ai l t o be se d uc e d by one 's si gn i s f ar more se ri -
ous t han t he f ai lure t o have one 's me ri t s re ward e d or one 's d e si re
grat i f i e d . Symboli c d i sc re d i t i s always muc h more se ri ous t han
a re al d e f e c t or mi sf ort une .
Thus t he c hari t able i d e a of f ound i ng an Inst i t ut e of Zod i ac al
Se mi urgy whe re , j ust as one 's physi c al appe aranc e c an be c or-
re c t e d by plast i c surge ry, t he i nj ust i c e s of t he Si gn c ould be ri ght -
e d and t he horosc ope 's orphans f i nally re c e i ve t he Si gn of t he i r
c hoi c e i n ord e r t hat t he ymi ght be re c onc i le d wi t h t he mse lve s .
It would be agre at suc c e ss, at le ast t he e qual of t hat of t he sui -
c i d e mot e ls whe re pe ople wi ll c ome t o d i e i n t he manne r of
t he i r c hoosi ng .
DEATHIN SAMARKAND
An e l l i p s i s of the s i g n, an e cl i p s e
of
me ani ng :
an,
i l l u s i on. The
mortal di s tracti on that a s i ng l e s i g n can cau s e i ns tantane ou s l y.
Cons i de r
the s tory
of the s ol di e r who me e ts De ath at acros s -
i ng i n
the marke tp l ace , and be l i e ve s he s awhi m make ame nac-
i ng g e s tu re i n hi s di re cti on. He ru s he s
to
the ki ng 's
p al ace
and
as ks the ki ng for hi s be s t hors e i n orde r that he mi g ht fl e e du r-
i ng
the
ni g ht
far from De ath, as far as Samarkand . Up on whi ch
the ki ng s u mmons De ath
to the p al ace and re p roache s
hi m for
havi ng fri g hte ne d one of hi s be s t s e rvants . ; Bu t De ath,
as toni s he d, re p l i e s : " I di dn't me an
to
fri g hte n hi m.
It was j u s t
that I was s u rp ri s e d to s e e thi s s ol di e r he re , whe n we had a
re nde z-vou s tomorrow i n Samarkand . "
Ye s , one ru ns towards
one 's fate al l the more s u re l y by s e e k-
i ng to e s cap e i t . Ye s , e ve ryone s e e ks hi s own de ath, and the
fai l e d acts are the mos t s u cce s s fu l . Ye s , s i g ns fol l ow anu ncons -
ci ou s cou rs e . Bu t al l thi s conce rns the tru th of the re nde z-vou s
i n Samarkand ; i t doe s not accou nt for the s e du cti on
of
the s to-
ry, whi ch i s i n no way an ap ol og u e of tru th .
What i s as tou ndi ng abou t the s tory i s that thi s s e e mi ng l y i n-
e vi tabl e re nde z-vou s ne e d not have take n p l ace . The re i s noth-
i ng
to s u g g e s t that the s ol di e r wou l d have be e n
i n
Samarkand
wi thou t thi s chance e ncou nte r, and wi thou t the i l l -l u ck of
SUPERFICIAL ABYSSES 7 3
Death's naive gesture, which acted in spite of itsel f as
a gesture
of seduction. Had Death been content to cal l the sol dier back
to order,
the story
woul d l ose
its charm. Everything here is
hinged on a singl e, invol untary sign. The gesture does not ap-
pear to be part of a strategy, nor even an unconscious ruse ; yet
it takes on the unexpected depth of seduction, that is,
it
ap-
pears as
something that moves l ateral l y, as a sign that, un-
beknownst
to
the protagonists (incl uding Death, as wel l as the
sol dier) , advances a deadl y command, an al eatory sign behind
which another conjunction, marvel ous or disastrous, is being
enacted. A conjunction that gives the sign's trajectory al l the
characteristics
of
a witticism .
No
one in the story has anything to reproach himsel f with
- or el se the king who l ent his horse, is as guil ty as anyone el se.
No. Behind the apparent l iberty of the two central characters
(Death was free to make his gesture, the sol dier to
fl ee) , they
were both fol l owing a rul e of which neither were aware . The
rul e of this game, which, l ike every fundamental rul e, must re-
main secret, is that death is not a brute event, but onl y occurs
through seduction, that is, by way of an instantaneous, in-
decipherabl e compl icity, by a sign or signs that wil l not be
deciphered in time .
Death is a rendez-vous, not an objective destiny. Death can-
not fail to go since he is this rendez-vous, that is, the al l usive
conjunction of
signs
and rul es
which make up the-game . At the
same time, Death is an innocent pl ayer in the game . This is what
gives the story its secret irony, whose resol ution appears as a
stroke of wit [trait d esprit], and provides us
with
such
sub-
l ime pl easure - and distinguishes it from a moral fabl e or a vul -
gar tal e about the death instinct . The spiritual character [trait
spirituel ] of the story extends the spirited character [trait
d espritgestuel ] of Death's gesture, and the two seductions, that
of Death and of
the
story, fuse together
.
Death's astonishment is del ightful , an astonishment at the fri-
vol ity of an arrangement where things proceed by chance : "But
this sol dier shoul d have known that he was expected in Samar-
kand tomorrow, and taken his time to get there . . . " However
Death shows onl y surprise, as if his existence did not depend
as much as the sol dier's on the fact that they were to meet in
74 SEDUCTION
Samarkand. Death l ets things
happen, and it is
his
cas ual nes s
that makes him appeal ing - this
is
why
the s ol dier has tens to
join him.
None of this invol ves the uncons cious , metaphys ics or ps y-
chol ogy. Or even s trategy. Death has no pl an. He res tores chance
with a chance ges ture; this is hove he works , yet everything s til l
gets done. There is nothing that cannot not be done, yet every-
thing s til l pres erves the l ightnes s of chance, of afurtive ges ture,
an accidental encounter or an il l egibl e s ign. That's howit is with
s eduction. . .
Moreover, the s ol dier went to meet death becaus e he gave
meaning
to a meaningl es s ges ture which didnot even concern
him. He took pers onal l y s omething
that was
notj
addres s ed to
him, as one might mis take for ones el f
a
s mil e
meant
for
s ome-
one el s e. The height of s eduction is to be without s eduction.
The mans educed is caught in s pite of hims el f in a web of s tray
s igns
.
And it is becaus e the s ign has been turned from its meaning
or "s educed," that the s toryits el f is s eductive. It is when s igns
are s educed that they become s eductive.
Onl y s igns ,without referents , empty, s ens el es s , abs urd and
el l iptical s igns , abs orb us .
A l ittl e
boy as ks a
fairy
to grant him his wis hes . The fairy
agrees on one condition,
that he never think of the col our red
in the fox's tail . "Is that al l ? "
he repl ies
offhandedl y. And off
he goes to find happines s . But what happens ? He is unabl e to
rid hims el f of this fox's tail , which he bel ieved. he had al ready
forgotten. He s ees it everywhere, with its red col our, in his
thoughts , and in his dreams . Des pite al l his efforts , he cannot
make it dis appear. He becomes obs es s ed with this abs urd, in-
s ignificant, but tenacious
image, augmented byal l the s pite that .
comes from not having been abl e to rid hims el f of it . Not onl y
do the fairy's promis es not come true, but he l os es his tas te for
l ife
. Perhaps he dies without ever having gotten cl ear of it .
An abs urd s tory, but abs ol utel ypl aus ibl e, for it demons trates
thepowerof the ins ignificant s ignifier, the power ofa meaning-
SUPERFICIAL ABYSSES 75
l e s s s i g n i f i e r.
The f a i r y wa s mi s chi e vous (s he wa s n 't a g ood f a i r y ) . She kn e w
tha t the mi n d i s i r r e s i s ti b l y a ttr a cte d to a pl a ce de voi d of me a n -
i n g . He r e the e mpti n e s s
wa s
s e e mi n g l y
pr ovoke d b y the
i n s i g -
n i f i ca n ce (thi s i s why the chi l d wa s n ot
on
hi s
g ua r d) of
the
col our r e d of a f ox 's ta i l . El s e whe r e wor ds a n dg e s tur e s a r e e mp-
ti e d of the i r me a n i n g b y un f l a g g i n g r e pe ti ti on a n d s ca n s i on .
To we a r
me a n i n g
out, to ti r e i t out i n or de r to l i b e r a te the pur e
s e ducti on of the n ul l s i g n i f i e r or e mpty te r m - s uch i s the
s tr e n g th of r i tua l ma g i c a n d i n ca n ta ti on .
But i t ca n j us t a s we l l b e a di r e ct f a s ci n a ti on wi th the voi d,
a s i n the phy s i ca l ve r ti g o of a cha s m, or the me ta phor i ca l ve r -
ti g o
of
a
door
tha t ope n s
on to
the voi d. If y ou we r e to s e e wr i t-
te n on a door pa n e l : "Thi s ope n s on to the voi d. " - woul dn 't
y ou s ti l l wa n t to ope n i t?
Tha t whi ch
l ooks on to
n othi n g ha s e ve r y r e a s on
to
b e
ope n e d. Tha t whi ch doe s n 't s a y a n y thi n g ha s e ve r y r e a s on to
n e ve r b e f or g otte n . Tha t whi ch i s a r b i tr a r y i s s i mul ta n e ous l y
e n dowe d wi th a tota l n e ce s s i ty . The pr e de s ti n a ti on of the e mpty
s i g n , the pr e ce s s i on
of
the voi d, the ve r ti g o
of
a n ob l i g a ti on
de voi d
of
s e n s e , a pa s s i on f or n e ce s s i ty.
He r e l i e s s ome thi n g of the s e cr e t of ma g i c (the f a i r y wa s a
ma g i ci a n ) . The powe r of wor ds , the i r "s y mb ol i c e f f i ca cy " i s
g r e a te r whe n utte r e d i n a voi d. Whe n the y ha ve n e i the r con -
te x t n or r e f e r e n t, the y ca n ta ke on the powe r of a s e l f -f ul f i l l i n g
(or s e l f -de f e a ti n g ) pr ophe cy. Li ke the col our r e d of a f ox 's ta i l .
Un r e a l a n d i n s ub s ta n ti a l , i t pr ove s
compe l l i n g b e ca us e
of
i ts
n ul l i ty. If the f a i r y ha d f or b i dde n the chi l d f r om doi n g s ome -
thi n g s e r i ous or s i g n i f i ca n t, he woul d ha ve pul l e d thr oug h e a s -
i l y , i n s te a d of b e i n g s e duce d a g a i n s t hi s wi l l . For i t i s n ot the
pr ohi b i ti on ,
b ut i ts n on -s e n s e tha t s e duce s
hi m .
Thus ,
a g a i n s t
a l l l og i c, i t i s the i mpr ob a b l e pr ophe ci e s tha t come tr ue ; a l l tha t
i s r e qui r e d i s tha t the y n ot ma ke too much s e n s e . Othe r wi s e
the y woul d n ot b e pr ophe ci e s . Such i s the b e wi tchme n t of
ma g -
i ca l s pe e ch, s uch i s the s or ce r y of s e ducti on .
Thi s i s why n e i the r ma g i c n or s e ducti on con ce r n s b e l i e f or
ma ke -b e l i e ve , f or the y e mpl oy s i g n s wi thout cr e di b i l i ty a n d
g e s tur e s wi thout r e f e r e n ts ; the i r l og i c i s n ot on e of me di a ti on ,
b ut of i mme di a cy , wha te ve r the
s i g n .
76
SEDUCTION
Proof
i s unneces s ary
.
Everybody
knows that thei r s pell i s car-
ri ed by the unmedi ated res onance of the s i gns . There i s no offi -
ci al, i ntermedi ary ti me for the s i gn and i ts deci pherment ; i t i s
not a matter of beli evi ng, doi ng, wanti ng, or
knowi ng . Thei r
attracti on i s forei gn to the forms of di s cours e, as well as the
di s ti ncti ve logi c of the utterance: and s tatement . Thei r s pell be-
longs to the order of declamati on and prophecy, a di s cours e
whos e s ymboli c effecti venes s requi res nei ther deci pherment
nor beli ef .
The i mmedi ate attracti on of a s ong, a voi ce or s cent . The
attracti on of the panther's s cent (Ddti enne: Di onys os mi s a
mort). Accordi ng to the anci ents , the panther i s the
only ani mal
to emi t a fragrant odour, whi ch . i t us es to capture i ts vi cti ms .
The panther
has
only
to hi de (hi s appearance
s tri kes terror),
and hi s vi cti ms are bewi tched by hi s s cent - an i nvi s i ble trap
to whi ch they come to be caught .
But
thi s power of s educti on
can be turned agai ns t the panther: one hunts hi m by
us i ng
s pi ces , herbs and perfumes as bai t .
But what does i t mean to s ay that the panther s educes by
i ts s cent? Why i s i ts s cent s educti ve? (And whyi s thi s legend
i ts elf s educti ve? What s ort of fragrance does i t emi t?) What ac-
counts
for
the s educti on of the s ong of the Si rens ,
the
beauty
of
a face, the depths
of a chas m, or the i mmi nence of a catas -
trophe - as well as the s cent
of
the panther
or
a
door
that opens
onto the voi d? Is i t s ome hi dden force of attracti on? or a power-
ful des i re? No, thes e are empty terms
. Seducti on
li es wi th the
annulment of the s i gns , of thei r meani ng, wi th thei r pure ap-
pearance . Eyes that s educe have no meani ng, thei r meani ng be-
i ng
exhaus ted
i n
the gaze, as a face wi th makeup i s exhaus ted
i n i ts appearance, i n the formal . ri gour
of
a s ens eles s labour.
Above all, s educti on s uppos es not a s i gni fi ed des i re, but the
beauty
of
an arti fi ce .
The panther's s cent i s als o a s ens eles s mes s age - andbehi nd
thi s mes s age the panther i s i nvi s i ble, li ke a woman beneath
her
makeup .
The
Si rens too
remai ned
uns een. Sorcery i s formed
by what li es hi dden.
The seduction of eyes . Themost immediate, purest form of
seduction, one that bypasses words. Where looks alone join
in
a sort of
duel, an immediate intertwining, unbeknownst to
others and their discourses : the discrete charm of a silent and
immobile orgasm. Once the delightful tension of the gazes gives
way to words or loving gestures, the intensity declines.
Atac-
tility of
gazes that sums up the body's full potential (and that
of its desires?) in a single, subtle instant, as in a stroke of wit.
Aduel that is simultaneouly sensual, even voluptuous, but dis-
incarnated - a perfect foretaste of seduction's vertigo, which
the more carnal pleasures that follow will not equal. That these
eyes meet is accidental, but it is as though they had been fixed
on each other forever. Devoid of
meaning, what is exchanged
are not the gazes. There is no desire here,
for
desire is
not cap-
tivating,
while eyes, like fortuitous appearances, cast a spell com-
posed of pure, duel signs, with neither depthnor temporality.
SUPERFICIAL ABYSSES 77
Any system that is totally complicit in its own absorption,
such that
signs
no
longer make sense, will exercise a remarka-
ble power of
fascination . Systems fascinate by their esotericism,
which preserves them from external logics . Theabsorption of
anything real by something self- sufficient, and self- destructive,
proves fascinating . Whether a system of
thought, an automatic
mechanism, a perfect and perfectly useless object or a desert
of
stones, a woman or strip- tease artist (who must caress her-
self in order to "enchant" and exercise her power)
- or,
to
be
sure, God that most beautiful
piece
of
esoteric machinery.
Or the
woman with makeup, who is absent to herself, an ab-
sence
of
a focussed look, the absence of a face - how can one
not be swallowed up in it? Abeauty is onewho abolishes
her-
self, thereby constituting a
challenge that
we
can only take up
by the dazzling loss of what? Of what is not beautiful . Thebeau-
tiful woman absorbed by the cares that
her
beauty
demands
is immediately infectious because,
in her narcissistic excess, she
is removed from her self, and because all that is removed
from
the
self
is
plunged into secrecy and absorbs its surroundings .
The attraction of the void lies at the basis of seduction : not
78 SEDUCTION
the accumulation of s ig ns , nor the mes s ag es of des ire, but an
es oteric complicity with
the abs orption of s ig ns . ;Seduction be-
g ins in s ecrecy, in the s low, brutal exhaus tion of meaning which
es tablis hes a complicity among s t the s ig ns
;
it
is here, more than
in a'phys ical being or the, quality of a des ire, that s eduction is
concocted
.
And
it is what accounts for the enchantment of the
g ames 's rules .
THESECRET
ANDTHECHALLENGE
The secret .
Theseductive,
in itia to ry qua lity o f tha t which ca n n o t be sa id
beca use it ma kes
n o sen se, a n d o f tha t which is n o t sa id even
tho ugh it gets
a ro un d. Thus
I
kn o w a n o ther's secret but do n o t
revea l it a n d he kn o ws tha t I kn o w, but do es n o t
a ckn o wledge
it : the in ten sity between us is simply this secret a bo ut thesecret .
Theco mplicity ha s n o thin g to do with so me hidden piece
o f
in fo rma tio n .
Besides, even if wewa n ted to revea l the secret we
co uld n o t, sin ce there is n o thin g
to sa y . .
Every thin g
tha t ca n
be revea led lies o utside the secret . Fo r the
la tter is n o t a hid-
den sign ified, n o r the key to so methin g, but circula tes thro ugh
a n d tra verses every thin g
tha t ca n be sa id, j ust a s seductio n flo ws
ben ea th the o bscen ity o f speech.
I t is the o ppo site o f co mmu-
n ica tio n , a n d y et it ca n besha red . Thesecret ma in ta in s its po wer
o n ly a t the price
o f rema in in g un spo ken , j ust a s seductio n o per-
a tes o n ly beca use n ever
spo ken n o r in ten ded .
The hidden o r the repressed ha s a ten den cy
to ma n ifest
it-
self, wherea s the secret do es n o t . I t is a n in itia to ry a n d implo -
sive fo rm:
o n e en ters in to a secret, but ca n n o t exit . Thesecret
is n ever revea led, n ever co mmun ica ted, n ever
even "secreted"
(Zemplen y , No uvelle
Revuede Psy cha n a ly se, n o . 1 4 ) . When ce
its stren gth, the po wer o f a n a llusive, ritua l excha n ge
.
80 SEDUCTION
Thus in Kierkegaard's Diary cf
the Seducer, seduction takes
the form ofan enigma to be
solved . The girl is an enigma, and
in order to seduce her, one must become an enigma
for her.
It is
an enigmatic duel, one that the seduction
solves, but
without disclosing the secret . If the secret were disclosed,
sex-
uality would stand revealed . The story's
true meaning, if it had
one, would be about sex - but
in fact it doesn't have one. In
that place where
meaning
should
be, where sex should occur,
where words
point
to
it, and where others think i't to be - there
is
nothing. And this nothing/secret, this, the
seduction's un-
signified moves beneath the words and their
meaning, and
moves faster than their meaning. It is what touches
you first,
before the
sentences arrive, in the time it takes for them to fade
away. Aseduction beneath discourse,
an invisible seduction,
moving from
sign
to
sign - a secret circulation;
It is the
exact opposite ofthe psychological relation
:
to
share
someone's secrets is not to share his or
her phantasies or desires,
nor it is to share something as yet
unspoken . When' the id speaks,
it is not seductive .
All
that
involves repression, expressive ener-
gies or
the unconscious, everything that wishes to speak, every-
where the ego has to appear -all this belongs to an
exoteric
order that contradicts the esoteric
form
of:
secrecy and
seduction .
Yet the unconscious, the
"adventure"
of
the unconscious, ap-
pears as the
last, large-scale attempt to reestablish secrecy
in
a society
without secrets. The unconscious appears as our secret,
our
personal mystery in a confessional and transparent socie-
ty. But it isn't really a secret, for it is
merely psychological . It
does not have an existence of
its own, since the unconscious
was
created at the same time as psychoanalysis, ; that is to
say,
at the same time as the procedures for its
assimilation, and the
techniques for the retraction of the secrets
lodged in its deep
structures.
r
But perhaps something is taking its revenge on
all the interpre-
tations, and in a subtle waydisrupting
their development? Some-
thing that,
most decidedly, does not want to be said and that,
being an enigma, enigmatically possesses its
own resolution,
and so aspires to remain
in
secret
and in the joys of secrecy.
Language
returns
to
its secret seduction despite all the efforts
to uncover and betray i t i n order to make i t s i g ni f y, whi le we
return to our own i ns oluble pleas ures .
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 81
There i s nei ther
a ti me of s educti on, nor a ti me f or s educ-
ti on, but s ti ll i t has i ts own
i ndi s pens able rhythm. Unli ke i n-
s trumental s trateg i es , whi ch
proceed by i ntermedi ary s tag es ,
s educti on operates i ns tantaneous ly,
i n a s i ng le movement, and
i s always i ts own end.
The
cycle of s educti on cannot be s topped. One can . s educe
s omeone i n order to s educe s omeone els e, but
als o s educe
s omeone
els e to pleas e ones elf . The i llus i on that leads f rom the
one to the other i s s ubtle . Is i t to s educe,
or to be s educed, that
i s s educti ve? But to be s educed
i s
the
bes t way to s educe. It
i s an endles s ref rai n. There i s no acti ve or
pas s i ve mode i n s educ-
ti on,
no s ubject or object, no i nteri or or exteri or : s educti on
plays on both s i des , and there
i s no f ronti er s eparati ng them.
One cannot s educe others , i f one has not ones elf
been s educed.
Becaus e s educti on
never s tops at the truth of s i g ns , but oper-
ates by decepti on
and s ecrecy, i t i naug urates a mode of ci rcu-
lati on that i s i ts elf s ecreti ve and
ri tuali s ti c, a s ort of i mmedi ate
i ni ti ati on that plays by i ts own rules
.
To be s educed i s to be turned
f rom one's truth. To s educe
i s to lead the other f romhi s /her truth . Thi s truth then becomes
as ecret that es capes hi m/her (Vi ncent
Des combes : L'i ncons ci ent
malg re lua) .
Seducti on i s i mmedi ately revers i ble, andi ts revers i bi li ty
i s con-
s ti tuted by the challeng e
i t i mpli es and the s ecret i n whi ch i t
i s abs orbed.
It i s a power of attracti on and di s tracti on,
of abs orpti on and
f as ci nati on,
a power that caus e the collaps e of not jus t s ex, but
the real i n g eneral -
a power of def i ance. It i s never an econo-
my of s ex or s peech, but an es calati on
of vi olence and g race,
an i ns tantaneous
pas s i on that can res ult i n s ex, but whi ch can
jus t as eas i ly exhaus t i ts elf i n the
proces s of def i ance and death .
It i mpli es a radi cal
i ndetermi nati on that di s ti ng ui s hes i t f rom
a dri ve - dri ves bei ng i ndetermi nate i n relati on
to
thei r object,
but determi ned
as f orce and ori g i n, whi le the pas s i on of s educ-
82 SEDUCTION
tion has neither substance nor origin . It is not from some
l ibid i-
nal investment, some energy of d esire that this passion acquires
its intensity, but from
gaming
as
pure form and from purel y for-
mal
bl uffing .
Likewise, the
chal l enge . It too has a d uel form that wears it-
sel f out in no time
at al l , d rawing its intensity from this instan-
taneous reversion . It too is bewitching, l ike a
meaningl ess
d iscourse to which one cannot
not respond for, the very rea-
son that it is absurd .
Why
d oes
one respond to a chal l enge?
The same mysterious question
as : what is it that sed uces?
What coul d be
more sed uctive than a chal l enge? A sed uc-
tion or
chal l enge al ways d rives the other mad , but with a ver-
tigo that is
reciprocal - an insanity borne by the vertiginous
absence that unites
them, and by their reciprocal engul fment .
Such is the
inevitabil ity of the chal l enge, and why one cannot
but respond to
it . For it inaugurates a kind of insane rel ation,
quite unl ike rel ations of communication or
exchange : a d uel
rel ation transacted by meaningl ess signs, but
hel d together by
a fund amental rul e and its secret
observance. Achal l enge ter-
minates al l contracts and exchanges regul ated by
the l aw
(whether the l aw of nature or val ue), substituting a highl y con-
ventional and ritual ized pact, with an unceasing
obl igation to
respond and respond
in spad es - an obl igation that is governed
by a fund amental
game rul e, and proceed s in accord with its
own rhythm . In contrast to the : l aw, which is al ways
inscribed
in stone or the sky, or in one's heart, this
fund amental rul e never
need s to be stated ; ind eed , it
must never be stated . It is im-
med iate, immanent, and
inevitabl e (whereas the l aw is transcen-
d ent and expl icit) .
There can never be sed uction or
chal l enge by contract . In
ord er
for a chal l enge or sed uction to exist, al l contractual rel a-
tions must d isappear before the d uel
rel ation - a : rel ation com-
posed of secret signs that have been
withd rawn from exchange,
and d erive
their intensity from their formal d ivision and
im-
med iate reverberation . In l ike manner, sed uction's
enchantment
puts an end to al l l ibid inal economies, and
every sexual or psy-
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 83
chological contract, replacing them with
a
dizzying
s piral of
res pons es and counter-res pons es
. It is never an inves tment but
a ris k ; never a contract but a pact ; never
individual but duel ;
never ps ychological
but ritual ; never natural but artificial . It is
no one's s trategy, but a des tiny.
Challenge and
s eduction are quite s imilar. And yet there is
a difference . In a challenge
one draws the other into one's area
of s trength, which, in view of the potential for
unlimited es ca-
lation, is als o his or her area of s trength .
Whereas in a s trategy
( ? ) of s eduction one draws the other into one's area
of
weak -
nes s , which is als o his
or
her
area of weak nes s . Acalculated
weak nes s , an incalculable weak nes s : one challenges
the other
to be tak en in . A
weak nes s or failure : is n't the panther's s cent
its elf a weak nes s , an abys s which
the other animals approach
giddily? In fact, the panther
of the mythical s cent is s imply the
epicenter of death, and from this weak nes s
s ubtle fragrances
emerge
.
To s educe is to appear weak . To s educe is to render
weak
.
We
s educe
with
our weak nes s , never with s trong s igns or pow-
ers . In s eduction we enact this weak nes s ,
and this is what gives
s eduction its s trength .
We s educe with our death, our vulnerability,
and with the
void that haunts
us . The s ecret is to k now how to play with
death in the abs ence
of a gaze or ges ture, in the abs ence of
k nowledge or meaning.
Ps ychoanalys is tells us to as s ume our fragility
and pas s ivity,
but in
almos t religious terms , turns them into a form of res ig-
nation and acceptance in
order to promote a well tempered ps y-
chic equilibrium. Seduction, by contras t, plays
triumphantly
with
weak nes s , mak ing a game of it, with
its own rules .
Everything is s eduction
and nothing but s eduction .
They
wanted us to believe that everything was
production
.
The theme s ong of world
trans formation : the play of produc-
8
4 SEDUCTION
tive
forces is what regulates the course of things. Seduction is
merely an immoral, frivolous,
sup erficial, and sup erfluous
p rocess,
limited
to
the realm of signs and ap p earances, devot-
ed to p leasure and the usufruct of
useless bodies . But what if
everything, contrary to ap p earances - in fact, in accord with
a secret rule of ap p earances - op erates by
seduction?
the moment of seduction
the
susp ension of seduction
the risk of seduction
the accident of seduction
the delirium of seduction
the p ause of
seduction .
Production only accumulates,
without deviating from its end.
It rep laces all illusions with j ust one, its own,
which becomes
the reality p rincip le . Production,
like revolution, p uts an end
to the
ep idemic
of
ap p earances . But seduction is inevitable . No
one living escap es it - not even the dead .
For the'dead are only
dead
when there are no longer any echoes from this
world to
seduce them, and no longer
any
rites
challenging them to exist .
For us, only those who can no longer p roduce are
dead. In
reality, only those who do not
wish
to
seduce or be seduced
are dead. But seduction gets hold of them nonetheless, j ust as
it gets hold of all p roduction and
ends up destroying it .
For the void - the hole that, at any p oint, is burned out
by
the return of the flame of any sign, the
meaninglessness that
makes for seduction's unexp ected
charm - also lies in wait,
without illusion, for p roduction once the latter
has reached its
limits. Everything returns to
the void, including our words and
gestures . But before disap p earing, certain words,
and gestures,
by anticip ating
their demise, are able to exercise a seduction
that
the others will never know Seduction's secret lies
in this
evocation and revocation of
the other, with a slowness and sus-
p ense that are p oetic, like the slow motion film of a
fall
or
an
exp losion, because
something had the time, p rior to its com-
p letion, to
makes its absence felt . And this, if there
is such a
thing, is the p erfection of "desire . "
THEEFFIGY OFTHESEDUCTRESS
Theprismatic effect of seduction provides another space of
refraction . Seduction does not consist of a simple appearance,
nor a pure absence, but the eclipse of a presence. Its sole strategy
is to be-there/not-there, and thereby producea sort of flick er-
ing,
a hypnotic mechanism that crystalliz es attention outside
all concern with meaning . Absence here seduces presence.
Thesovereign power
of
the seductress stems from her abili-
ty to "eclipse" any will or context . She cannot allow other re-
lations to be established - even the most intimate, affectionate,
amorous or sexual ( particularly not the latter) - without break ing
them,
or
repaying them with a strange fascination. She cons-
tantly avoids all relations in which, at some given moment, the
question of truth will be posed . Sheundoes them effortlessly,
not by denying
or
destroying them, but
by
mak ing them shim-
mer. Here lies her secret : in the flick ering of a presence. She
is never where one expects her, and never where one wants
her. Seduction supposes, V irilio would say, an "aesthetics of dis-
appearance. "
Theseductress turns desire itself into
an
illusion
or
trap . For
her there is no more truth to desire - or to the body - than
to
anything else. Love itself,
or
the . sex act, can become mo-
ments in a seduction if given the ecliptic form of appearance/dis-
86 SEDUCTION
appearance, that i t to s ay , a di s conti nuous form that cuts s hort
every emoti on, pleas ure and relati on i n order to reaffi rm the
s uperi or character of s educti on, i ts trans cendent aes theti cs rela-
ti ve to the i mmanent ethi cs of :pleas ure and des i re .
Love and
the carnal act are
only
s o much s educti ve
fi nery , the mos t re-
fi ned and s ubtle i nvented by women to s educe men. But
modes ty and rejecti on can play the s ame role. ;Every thi ng i s
fi nery i n thi s s ens e, and belongs to the geni us of appearance .
" I do not want to love, cheri s h, or even pleas e y ou, but to
s educe y ou - and my only concern i s not that y ou;
love
or
pleas e
me, but that y ou are s educed. " The game of the s eductres s i n-
volves a certai n mental cruelty , towards hers elf as well as others .
Any affecti on on her part i s a weaknes s relati ve to the ri tual
i mperati ve. No quarter can be gi ven i n a challenge
where love
and des i re are di s s olved . Nor
any
res pi te, les t
thi s fas ci nati on
be
reduced to nothi ng. The true s eductres s can only exi s t i n
a s tate of s educti on . Outs i de thi s s tate, s he i s no longer a wom-
an, nei ther an object nor s ubject of des i re, faceles s and
unat-
tracti ve - for s he i s borne by an all- cons umi ng pas s i on .
Seducti on i s s overei gn - the only ri tual that ecli ps es all others
- but i ts s overei gnty i s cruel, and carri es a heavy pri ce.
Thus ,
when s educi ng, her body and des i res are no longer
her
own .
But then what i s
thi s
body , or thes e
des i res ? She
does n't beli eve i n them - and s o play s wi th them. Wi thout a
body of her own, s he turns hers elf i nto a pure appearance, an
arti fi ci al cons truct wi th whi ch to trap the des i res of others .
Seducti on cons i s ts i n letti ng the other beli eve hi ms elf to be the
s ubject of hi s des i re, wi thout ones elf bei ng caught i n
thi s
trap.
It can als o
cons i s t i n becomi ng a.
.
" s educti ve" s ex" object, i f that
i s the man's " des i re. " The s pell cas t by s educti on pas s es through
s exual attracti on ; but i ndeed, i t pas s es through
i n'
order to
tran-
s cend i t . " I am
attracti ve,
but y ou
are capti vati ng. " - " Li fe has
i ts attracti ons , but death leaves one s pellbound . "
For s educti on, des i re i s not an end but a
hy potheti cal pri ze.
More preci s ely , the objecti ve i s to provoke and decei ve
des i re,
whi ch exi s ts only to burn for a moment and then be di s appoi nt-
ed - , i t bei ng deluded as to i ts power, whi ch i s gi ven to i t
only
i n order to be wi thdrawn. The pers on mi ght not even
know
what has happened
. It mi ght be that the pers on s educi ng actu-
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 87
a l l y l oves or desires the person seduced,
but a t a deeper l evel
(or a more superficia l l evel if one w il l , in
the superficia l a by ss
of a ppea ra nces) a nother ga me is being pl a y ed
out, unbeknow nst
to
the
tw o prota gonists w ho rema in mere puppets .
For seduction,
desire is a my th . If desire is a w il l to pow er
a nd possession, seduction
pl a ces before it a n equa l w il l to pow er
by the simul a crum. In forming a w eb of a ppea ra nces seduc-
tion both susta ins this hy pothetica l pow er
of desire a nd exor-
cizes it . Just a s for Kierkega a rd's seducer the girl 's na ive gra ce,
her sponta neous
erotic pow er is merel y a my th, w hich is sus-
ta ined onl y
so tha t it ca n be a nnihil a ted (perha ps he l oves her,
but in the supra sensua l rea l m
of seduction the girl is but the
my thica l figure of a sa crifice) ; simil a rl y , for the
seductress, the
pow er of ma n's desire is a my th tha t
she uses
in
order to both
evoke a nd destroy it . The seducer's a rtifice, directed a t the girl 's
my thica l gra ce,
is
ful l y
equa l to the seductress' a rtificia l rew ork-
ing of her body , w hich
is directed a t the ma n's my thica l desire.
In both ca ses the my thica l pow er,
w hether the pow er of gra ce
or desire, is to be reduced to nothing. Seduction a l w a y s seeks
to
overturn
a nd exorcize a pow er . If seduction is a rtifica l , it is
a l so sa crificia l . One
is
pl a y ing
w ith dea th, it a l w a y s being a ma t-
ter of ca pturing or immol a ting the desire
of
the other.
Seduction, by contra st, is immorta l . The
seductress, l ike the
hy steric, w a nts to be immorta l a nd l ive in
a n
eterna l
present
- much to every one's a stonishment, given the fiel d of decep-
tion a nd despa ir in w hich she moves, a nd given the cruel ty of
her ga me . But here she survives
beca use outside psy chol ogy ,
mea ning or desire . Wha t destroy s peopl e, w ea rs them dow n,
is the mea ning they give their a cts . But the
seductress does not
a tta ch a ny mea ning to w ha t she does, nor suffer the w eight of
desire . Even if
she spea ks of rea sons or motives, be they guil ty
or cy nica l , it is a tra p. And her
ul tima te tra p is to a sk: " Tel l me
w ho I a m" - w hen she is indifferent
to
w ha t
she is,
w hen
she
is a
bl a nk,
w ith neither a ge nor history. Her pow er l ies in the
irony a nd el usiveness of her presence
. She ma y be bl ind to her
ow n existence, but she is w el l a w a re of a l l the mecha nisms
of
rea son a nd truth peopl e use
to protect themsel ves from seduc-
tion ; a nd she is a w a re
tha t from behind the shel ter of these
mecha nisms they w il l nonethel ess, if ha ndl ed
correctl y , l et them-
88 SEDUCTION
selves be seduced.
" I am
immortal," in other
words,
relentless . Which is to say
that the game must never stop, this even being one of its fun-
damental rules . For j ust as no player can be greater than the
game itself, so no seductress can be greater than seduction . None
of the vicissitudes of love or desire can be
allowed to break
this rule. One
must love in order to seduce, andnot the reverse .
Seduction
consists
of
finery, it weaves and unweaves appear-
ances, as Penelope weaved and unweaved her tapestry, as desire
itself was woven and unwoven beneath her hands . For it is ap-
pearances, and the mastery of appearances, that rule .
No one has ever been dispossessed of the power
associated
with seduction andits rules, this fundamental form. Yes, wom-
en have been dispossessed of
their bodies, their desires, hap-
piness and
rights . But they have always remained mistresses of
this possibility of eclipse, of seductive disappearance and trans-
luscence, and so have always been capable of eclipsing the pow-
er of their masters .
But is there afeminine figure, of seduction or, for that
mat-
ter, a masculine figure? Or is there but one form, variants of
which crystalliz e around one or the
other sex?
Seduction oscillates between two poles, apole of strategy
and apole of animality (and thus ranges from the most subtle
calculation to the most brutal physical suggestion) which we
associate
with the figures
of
the seducer and the seductress
respectively
.
But doesn't
this division mask a single form, an
undivided seduction?
Animal seduction .
With animals seduction achieves its purest form, in that the
seductive
display appears instinctual, immediately given in reflex
behaviours and natural finery. But for all that, animal seduc-
tion does not cease to be perfectly ritualistic. In this sense,
animals are the least natural of beings,
for with them artifice
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 89
-the effects of mascarade and finery - is at its most naive. It
is at the heart of this paradox, where the distinction between
nature and
culture is suppressed in the concept of finery, that
the analogy between animality and femininity plays itself out.
If animals are seductive, is it not because they are strategic
elements in
a campaign to deride our pretensions to humani-
ty? If the feminine is
seductive, is it not because it too thwarts
our claims to depth? The frivolous
has a power of seduction
which concurs with that of the bestial .
What we find seductive in animals is not their "natural"
savagery. For that matter, are animals really characterized
by
savagery, by a high degree of contingency, unpredictability, or
impulsiveness, or
on
the
contrary by high degrees of ritualized
behaviour? The same question can be
posed
for
primitive so-
cieties . The latter were once seen as close
to
the animal realm,
and indeed, in a sense, they are : for they share a common dis-
regard for the law, tied to high levels of observance of fixed
forms, whether in
their relation to their territory, other animals
or men.
Even in their dances and bodily ornamentation, their animal
grace is a product of a series of observances, rules and analo-
gies, which makes it the
opposite of natural chance. All the pres-
tigious attributes associated with
animals are ritual traits . The
"natural" finery of animals is similar
to the artificial finery of
humans, who, one might add, have always sought to incorporate
the former
into their rites . If there is a preference for animal
masks, it is because animals immediately appear as ritual
masks,
as a play of signs and a strategy of finery -as is the case with
human rituals . The very
morphology of primitive rituals, their
furs and feathers, gestures and dances are a
prototype of ritual
efficacy. That is, they never form a functional system (reproduc-
tion, sexuality,
ecology, mimicry -the postulates of anextremely
impoverished ethology reworked
and corrected by function-
alism),
but an ostentatious ceremony for mastering signs, and
a cycle for seducing
meaning, where the signs gravitate irresist-
ibly around each other so as to reproduce themselves as if by
magnetic
recurrence,
resulting
in dizziness, a loss of meaning,
and
the
sealing of an indestructible pact amongst the par-
ticipants .
90 SEDUCTION
Generally speaking, " rit u alit y" is, as a form, su perior t o " so-
c ialit y" .
The lat t er is only a rec ent , andnot very sedu c t ive form
of
organizat ion and exc hange, one invent ed by hu mans
for hu -
mans . Rit u alit y is a mu c h larger syst em,
enc ompassing t he liv-
ing and t he dead, hu mans and animals, as
well as a " nat u re"
whose periodic
movement s, rec u rrenc es and c at ast rophes serve,
seemingly spont aneou sly,
as rit u al signs . By c omparison, so-
c ialit y appears rat her impoverished: u nder t he sign of t he
Law
it is
c apable of bringing t oget her only one spec ies (and
even
t hen . . . ) . By c ont rast , rit u alit y su c c eeds
in maint aining - not by
laws, bu t by ru les and t heir infinit e
play
of
analogies - a form
of c yc lic al
order and u niversal exc hange of whic ht he Law and
t he soc ial are qu it e inc apable.
If we find animals appealing and sedu c t ive, it is bec au se
t hey
remind u s of t his rit u al arrangement . They do
not; evoke a nost al-
gia for t he savage st at e, bu t a
feline, t heat ric al nost algia for finery,
for t he sedu c t ion and st rat egy of
rit u al forms whic ht ransc end
all
soc ialit y and whic h, t hereby, st ill enc hant u s .
In t his sense one c an say t hat , wit h sedu c t ion, !one
" bec omes
an animal," or t hat female sedu c t ion
is animal-like, wit hou t im-
plying some
sort
of
inst inc t ive nat u re . For one is saying t hat
sedu c t ion is profou ndly linked. to body rit u als
; whic h, like all
ot her rit u als, serve not t o est ablish a nat u re and
u nc over it s law,
bu t t o -set u p appearanc es and
organize t heir c yc le. Not t hat fe-
male sedu c t ion
is et hic ally inferior. On t he * c ont rary, it is aes-
t het ic ally su perior. It is a st rat egy of finery.
Men, moreover, are never sedu c edby nat u ral beau t y,
bu t by
an art ific ial, rit u al beau t y
- bec au se t he lat t er is esot eric and
init iat ory, whereas
t he former is merely expressive. And bec au se
sedu c t ion lies in t he au ra of sec rec y produ c ed by
weight less,
art ific ial signs, and not in some, nat u ral
ec onomy of meaning,
beau t y or
desire .
The c laim t hat anat omy (or -t he body) is not ! dest iny is
not
rec ent , bu t was made far more st rident ly
in all ; soc iet ies prior
t o ou r own. Rit u als, c eremonies,
raiment s, masks, designs, mu -
t ilat ions and t ort u re - all in order t o sedu c e . . . ' t he gods, t he
spirit s, or t he dead. The body was t he
first great mediu m of
t his immense
u ndert aking . For u s alone does int ake on an aes-
t het ic ,
dec orat ive c harac t er. (Wit h it s t ru e c harac t er. t hereby de-
nied : the very idea of
decoration implies a moral denial of all
the body's magic. For the
savages, not to mention animals, it
is not decoration, but finery. And
a universal rule. He who is
not
painted is stupid, say the Caduveo).
We might find
the forms disgusting: covering the body with
mud, deforming the the skull
or filing the teeth in Mexico,
deforming the feet in China, distending
the neck, or making
incisions in the face, not to mention
tattoos, j ewelry, masks, fine
raiments,
ritual paintings ; or even the
bracelets made from tin
cans worn by
present-day Polynesians.
The body is made
to signify, but with signs that, strictly
speak-
ing, have no meaning.
All resemblance has vanished, all
representation is absent . The body
is covered with appearances,
illusions, traps, animal
parodies and sacrificial
simulations, not
in order to dissemble, nor
to reveal ( a desire, say, or a drive),
nor even
j ust for fun ( the spontaneous
expressiveness of chil-
dren and
primitives). What is involved
here is an undertaking
that Artaud
would have , termed metaphysical :
a sacrificial
challenge to the world
to exist . For nothing exists naturally,
things
exist because challenged,
and because summoned to
respond
to that challenge. I t is by being
challenged that the
powers of the
world, including the gods, are
aroused; it is by
challenging these
powers that they are
exorcized, seduced and
captured ; it
is by the challenge that the
game and its rules are
resurrected . All this requires
an artificial bluffing, that it
to say,
a
systematic simulation -that
troubles itself with neither
a
preestablished
state of the world nor bodily
anatomy. Aradical
metaphysics of simulation, it
need not even concern itself with
"natural" harmony. I n the
facial paintings of the Caduveo,
the
facial features
are not respected ; the
design's diagrams and sym-
metries being laid
across the face from one
end to the other.
( Our makeup submits
to the body as a referential
system, in
order
to accentuate its features and
orifices . But does this mean
that it is closer
to the nature of desire? Nothing
could be less
certain) .
SUPERFI CI ALABYSSES 91
Something
of this radical metaphysics
of appearances, this
92 SEDUCTION
challenge by simulation, still liv es in the cosmetic arts and the
glamour of modern fashion . The Church Fathers were well
aware of this, and denounced it as diabolical . "To be attentiv e
to one's body, to care for and paint it is to set oneself
up
as
a riv al
of God
and
contest
His
creation . " This stigmatization
has continued ev er since, but is now reflected ; in that other
religion, that of the subject's liberty and essential desires . Our
entire morality condemns the construction of the female as a
sex object by the facial andbodily arts . The female is no longer
denounced by God's judgment, but by the dictates of
modern
ideology,
for
prostituting
her femininity in
consumer
culture,
andsubjecting her body
to
the reproduction
of
capital . "Femi-
ninity is woman's alienated being. " "Femininity manifests itself
as an abstract totality, dev oid of any reality it can call its own,
a product of the discourse and ; rhetoric of adv ertising
. " "The
woman flushed with
her
beauty
masks and perpetually fresh
lips no
longer liv es her
real life,"
etc. , etc.
In opposition to all these pious discourses, we must again
praise the sex object ; for it bears,
in
the
sophistication of ap-
pearances, something of a
challenge
to
the naiv e order of the
world andsex; and it, and it alone, escapes the realm of produc-
tion (though one might like to believ e it subjected to the
latter)
and returns to that of seduction .
In its unreality in the unreal
defiance of
its prostitution
of
signs, the sexual object mov es
beyond sex and attains seduction . It again becomes ceremoni-
al
. The feminine was always the effigy of this ritual, and there
is a frightful confusion in wanting to de-sanctify it as a cult ob-
ject in order to turn it into a subject of production, or
in want-
ing to rescue it from artifice in
order
to
return it to its own
"natural"
desires .
Woman is well within her rights, and is indeed
forming a sort of duty, in studying to appear mag-
ical and supernatural . It is necessary that she
should astonish and bewitch. Being an idol ; she
must be gilded and adored.
She must therefore
borrow from all the arts the means of raising her-
self abov e
nature,
the better to
subjugate hearts and
stir souls . It
matters v ery little that her tricks and
SUPERFICIAL ABYSSES 93
a r t i f i c e s s hould be knownt o a ll, pr ovi de d t ha t t he i r
s uc c e s s i s c e r t a i n a nd t he i r e f f e c t a lwa ys i r r e s i s t i ble .
Suc h c ons i de r a t i ons
pr ovi de t he a r t i s t -phi los ophe r
wi t h a r e a dy j us t i f i c a t i on f or a ll t he pr a c t i c e s
e m-
ploye d by wome n of e ve r y pe r i od t o le nd
s ub-
s t a nc e a nd, s o t o s pe a k, di vi ni t y t o t he i r f r a g i le
be a ut y.
An e nume r a t i on
of
t he s e pr a c t i c e s would be i n-
t e r mi na ble . But t o c onf i ne our s e lve s t o wha t
our
c ont e mpor a r i e s vulg a r ly c a ll "t he us e of c os me t -
i c s , " who c a n f a i l t o s e e t ha t t he us e of r i c e -powde r
(s o
s t upi dly a na t he ma t i s e d by our c a ndi d
phi los ophe r s ) ha s t he obj e c t a nd r e s ult of ba ni s h-
i ng f r om t he c omple xi on t he ble mi s he s whi c h na -
t ur e ha s out r a g e ous ly s own t he r e , a nd of c r e a t i ng
a n
a bs t r a c t uni t y
i n t he t e xt ur e a nd c olour of t he
s ki n; a nd t ha t t hi s uni t y, li ke t he uni t y pr oduc e d
by t he s c ulpt or 's c hi s e l, br i ng s t he huma n be i ng
di r e c t ly ne a r e r t o t he s t a t ue - i n ot he r wor ds , t o
a be i ng t ha t i s di vi ne a nd s upe r i or ?
As
f or t he la mp-
bla c k t ha t out li ne s t he e ye , a nd t he r oug e t ha t e m-
pha s i ze s t he uppe r pa r t
of
t he c he e k, t he pla nne d
r e s ult of t he s e - a lt houg h t he i r us e a r i s e s f r om t he
s a me pr i nc i ple , t he ne e d t o t r a ns c e nd na t ur e - i s
t o s a t i s f y a n e xa c t ly oppos i t e ne e d. The r e d a nd
t he bla c k r e pr e s e nt li f e - a li f e s ur pa s s i ng a nd e x-
c e e di ng t ha t of t he na t ur e . The bla c k f r a me a r ound
t he e ye ma ke s t he g la nc e s t r a ng e r a nd mor e
pe ne t r a t i ng ; i t ma ke s t he e ye mor e di s t i nc t ly
r e s e mble a
wi ndow
ope n on t he
i nf i ni t e
.
The r e d
bla ze on t he c he e k f ur t he r e nha nc e s t he br i g ht -
ne s s of t he e ye , a nd le nds a woma n's love ly f a c e
t he mys t e r i ous pa s s i on of a pr i e s t e s s .
Cha r le s Ba ude la i r e , "In Pr a i s e
of Cos me t i c s
112
If de s i r e e xi s t s - a s mode r ni t y hypot he s i ze s - t he n not hi ng
mus t i nt e r f e r e wi t h i t s na t ur a l ha r mony, a nd c os me t i c s a r e
hypoc r i t i c a l . But i f de s i r e i s a myt h - a s s e duc t i on hypot he -
2. Cha r le s Ba ude la i r e ,
"In
Pr a i s e of Cos me t i c s " i n My He a r t La i d Ba r e a nd
Ot he r
Pr os e Wr i t i ng s (Ne w Yor k: Va ng ua r d Pr e s s , 1951) pp. 63-64 .
94 SEDUCTION
s i z e s - the n nothi ng can pre ve nt i t from be i ng put to us e by
s i gns , unre s trai ne d by natural li mi ts . The powe r of s i gns li e s
i n the i r
appe arance and di s appe arance ; that i s howthe y e fface
the world
.
Cos me ti cs
too are
a
me ans of e ffaci ng the face , e f-
faci ng the e ye s be hi nd
more be auti ful e ye s , cance lli ng the
li ps
be hi nd more luxuri ant li ps
.
Thi s
"abs tract
uni ty
that
bri ngs the
human be i ng ne are r to a be i ng that i s di vi ne , " thi s "li fe s urpas s -
i ng and e xce e di ng nature " about whi ch Baude lai re s pe aks ,
re s ults from a s i mple arti fi ci al s troke that s uppre s s e s all e xpre s -
s i on . Arti fi ce doe s not ali e nate the s ubje ct, but mys te ri ous ly
alte rs he r/hi m. Wome n are aware of thi s trans formati on whe n,
i n front
of
the i r mi rrors ,
the y mus t
e ras e the ms e lve s i n orde r
to apply the i r make up, and whe n, by applyi ng the i r make up,
the y make the ms e lve s i nto a pure appe arance de nude d of me an-
i ng . Howcan one mi s take thi s "e xce e di ng of nature " for a vul-
gar camouflagi ng of truth? Only fals e hoods can ali e nate the
truth, but make up i s not fals e , or e ls e ( li ke the game of
trans -
ve s ti te s ) i t i s fals e r than fals e hood and
s o
re cove rs a ki nd of s u-
pe ri or i nnoce nce or trans pare ncy. It abs orbs all e xpre s s i on
wi thi n i ts own s urface , wi thout a trace of blood or me ani ng.
Ce rtai nly thi s i s challe ngi ng, and crue l - but who i s ali e nate d?
Only thos e
who cannot abi de thi s crue l pe rfe cti on, and can-
not de fe nd the ms e lve s e xce pt by
moral re puls i on - and the y
are wrong. Howcan one re s pond to pure appe arance s , whe the r
hi e rati c or mobi le , wi thout fi rs t re cogni z i ng the i r. s ove re i gnty?
By taki ng off the make up, te ari ng off the ve i l, or e njoi ni ng the
appe arance s to di s appe ar? Howri di culous ! An i conoclas t's
uto-
pi a. The re i s no God be hi nd the
i mage s , and the ve ry nothi ng-
ne s s the y conce al mus t re mai n a s e cre t . The s e ducti on,
fas ci nati on and "ae s the ti c" attracti on of all the gre at i magi nary
proce s s e s li e s he re : i n the e ffaci ng of e ve ry i ns tance , be
i t the
face and
e ve ry s ubs tance ,
be
i t de s i re
-.
i n the arti fi ci al pe rfe c-
ti on of the
s i gn .
Undoubte dly, the be s t e xample of thi s i s to be found
i n the
only
i mportant
cons te llati on of
colle cti ve s e ducti on produce d
by mode rn ti me s , that of fi lm s tars or ci ne ma i dols . Now the
SUPERFICIAL ABYSSES
95
s t a r , even i f a ma n,
i s f emi ni ne; f or i f Godi s ma s culi ne, i dols
a r e a lwa ys f emi ni ne. Andi n
t r ut h , t h e bi gges t s t a r s wer e wom-
en. Th ey wer e, h owever , no longer bei ngs
of
f les h
a nddes i r e,
but t r a ns exua l,
s upr a s ens ua l bei ngs , a r ound wh om cr ys t a lli zed
s t er n r i t ua ls a nd
a wa s t ef ul pr of us i on wh i ch t ur ned t h em i nt o
a gener a t i on of s a cr ed
mons t er s , endowedwi t h a power of a b-
s or pt i on equa l t o a ndr i va li ng
t h e r ea l wor ld's power s of pr oduc-
t i on. Th ey wer e our only myt h
i n a n a ge i nca pa ble of gener a t i ng
gr ea t myt h s or f i gur es of
s educt i on compa r a ble t o t h os e of
myt h ology or a r t .
Th e
ci nema 's power li ves i n i t s myt h . It s
s t or i es , i t s ps ych o-
logi ca l por t r a i t s ,
i t s i ma gi na t i on or r ea li s m, t h e mea ni ngf ul i m-
pr es s i ons i t lea ves -
t h es e a r e a ll s econda r y. Only t h e myt h i s
power f ul, a nda t t h e h ea r t of t h e
ci nema t ogr a ph i c myt h li es
s educt i on -
t h a t of t h e r enowned s educt i ve f i gur e,
a ma n or
woma n (but a bove
a ll a woma n) li nked t o t h e r a vi s h i ng
but s pe-
ci ous power of t h e
ci nema t ogr a ph i c i ma ge i t s elf . Ami r a culous
conjunct i on.

_ ,
Th e s t a r
i s by no mea ns a n i dea l or s ubli me bei ng :
s h e i s a r -
t i f i ca l . Sh e
need not be a n a ct r es s i n t h e
ps ych ologi ca l s ens e;
h er f a ce i s not t h e
r ef lect i on of a s oul or s ens i t i vi t y wh i ch
s h e
does not h a ve. On t h e
cont r a r y, h er pr es ence s er ves t o s ubmer ge
a ll s ens i bi li t y a ndexpr es s i on
benea t h a r i t ua l f a s ci na t i on wi t h
t h e voi d, benea t h t h e
ecs t a cy of h er ga ze a ndt h e nulli t y of h er
s mi le. Th i s i s h ow s h e a ch i eves myt h i ca l s t a t us
a ndbecomes
s ubject
t o collect i ve r i t es of s a cr i f i ci a l a dula t i on .
Th e a s cens i on
of t h e ci nema i dols , t h e ma s s es ' di vi ni t i es ,
wa s
a ndr ema i ns a cent r a l s t or y
of moder n t i mes - i t s t i ll count er -
ba la nces a ll poli t i ca l or s oci a l event s
. Th er e i s no poi nt i n di s -
mi s s i ng
i t a s mer ely t h e dr ea ms of mys t i f i ed
ma s s es . It i s a
s educt i ve occur r ence
t h a t count er ba la nces ever y pr oduct i ve oc-
cur r ence.
To be s ur e, s educt i on i n t h e a ge
of
t h e
ma s s es i s no longer
li ke t h a t of Th e
Pr i nces s of Cleves , Les Li a i s ons Da nger eus es
or Di a r y of t h e Seducer ,
nor f or t h a t ma t t er , li ke t h a t f oundi n
a nci ent myt h ology, wh i ch
undoubt edly cont a i ns t h e s t or i es
r i ch es t i n s educt i on .
In t h es e s educt i on i s h ot , wh i le
t h a t of
our
moder n i dols i s cold, bei ng a t t h e
i nt er s ect i on of t wo cold
medi ums ,
t h a t of t h e i ma ge a ndt h a t of t h e
ma s s es .
96
SEDUCTION
This l a t t e r se duct ion
ha s t he spe ct r a l whit e ne ss of t he
he a ve n-
l y st a r s, a ft e r
which t he y a r e so a ppr opr ia t e l y na me d. The
ma sse s
ha ve
be e n "se duce d" in t he mode r n e r a by
onl y t wo gr e a t
e ve nt s : t he whit e l ight of t he st a r s, a nd
t he bl a ck l ight of t e r -
r or ism. The se t wo phe nome na ha ve much
in common . Te r r or ist
a ct s, l ike t he st a r s,
"fl icke r : " t he y do not not e nl ight e n
; t he y
do not r a dia t e a
cont inuous, whit e l ight , but a n
int e r mit t e nt ,
col d l ight ; t he y disa ppoint
e ve n a s t he y e xa l t ; t he y fa scina t e
by
t he sudde ne ss of
t he ir a ppe a r a nce a nd t he immine nce of
t he ir
disa ppe a r a nce .
And t he y a r e const a nt l y be ing
e cl ipse d a s t he y
e a ch
t r y t o out do e a ch ot he r .
The gr e a t st a r s or se duct r e sse s ne ve r
da zzl e be ca use of t he ir
t a l e nt or int e l l ige nce , but be ca use
of t he ir a bse nce . The y
a r e
da zzl ing in t he ir nul l it y, a nd in
t he ir col dne ss - t he col dne ss
of
ma ke up a nd r it ua l hie r a t icism
( r it ua l s a r e cool , a ccor ding t o
McLuha n). The y t ur n
int o a me t a phor t he imme nse
gl a cia l
pr oce ss which ha s se ize d
hol d
of
our unive r se of me a ning,
wit h
it s
fl icke r ing ne t wor ks of signs a nd ima ge s; but a t
t he sa me t ime ,
a t a
spe cific hist or ica l conjunct ur e
t ha t ca n no l onge r be
r e pr oduce d, t he y t r a nsfor m it int o a n
e ffe ct of se duct ion .
The cine ma ha s ne ve r
shone e xce pt . by pur e se duct ion,
by
t he pur e vibr a ncy of
non-se nse - a hot shimme r ing
t ha t is a l l
t he mor e
be a ut iful for ha ving come fr om
t he col d .
Ar t ifice a nd non-se nse , t he y a r e t he
idol ' s e sot e r ic fa ce , it s
ma sk of init ia t ion . The se duct ion of
a fa ce pur ge d of a l l e xpr e s-
sion, e xce pt t ha t of t he r it ua l
smil e a nd a no l e ss conve nt iona l
be a ut y . Awhit e fa ce , wit h t he
whit e ne ss of signs conse cr a t e d
t o r it ua l ize d
a ppe a r a nce s, no l onge r subje ct t o some
de e p l a w
of significa t ion . The
st e r il it y of idol s is we l l -known
: t he y do
not r e pr oduce , but
r ise fr om t he a she s, l ike t he
phoe nix, or fr om
t he ir mir r or , l ike t he se duct r e ss .
The se gr e a t se duct ive
e ffigie s a r e our ma sks, our
Ea st e r Is-
l a nd
st a t ue s . But do not be mist a ke n : if once ,
hist or ica l l y, t he r e
we r e t hr ongs hot wit h
a dor a t ion, r e l igious pa ssion,
sa cr ifice
a nd insur r e ct ion, now t he r e a r e
ma sse s col d wit h se duct ion
a nd
fa scina t ion . The ir
e ffigy is cine ma t ogr a phic a nd
impl ie s a diffe r -
e nt
sa cr ifice .
The de a t h of t he st a r s is me r e l y
punishme nt for t he ir r it ua l -
ize d idol a t r y . The y must die ,
t he y must a l r e a dy be de a d -
so
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 97
that they can be perfect and s u perfi ci al , wi th or wi thou t thei r
makeu p
. Bu t thei r death mu s t not l ead u s to a negati ve abreac-
ti on . For behi nd the onl y exi s ti ng form of
i mmortal i ty, that of
arti fi ce, there
l i es the i dea i ncarnated i n the s tars , that death
i ts el f s hi nes by i ts abs ence,
that death can be tu rned i nto a bri l -
l i ant
and s u perfi ci al appearance, that i t i s i ts el f a s edu cti ve
s u rface . . .
THEIRONIC
STRATEGY
OF
THESEDUCER
If i t i s charact eri s t i c of t he s educt res s
t hat s he t urns hers elf
i nt o an appearance i n order t o di s t urb appearances ,
what i s
charact eri s t i c of t hat ot her
f i g ure, t he s educer?
He t oo
t urns hi ms elf i nt o an : i llus i on i n order,t o s ow conf u-
s i on, but curi ous ly, t hi s i llus i on i s
part
of
a calculat i on, wi t h
f i nery_
g i vi ng way t o s t rat eg y . Now i f a woman's f i nery i s als o
s t rat eg i c, a calculat ed di s play, i s not t he s educer's
s t rat eg y a di s -
play of
calculat i on wi t h whi ch t o def end hi ms elf f rom s ome
oppos i ng f orce? As t rat eg y of f i nery vs . t he f i nery of
s t rat eg y . .
Di s cours es t hat
are
t oo
s ure of t hems elves - as wi t h s t rat e-
g i es of
love - mus t be unders t ood di f f erent ly. Thoug h complet e-
ly " rat i onal," t hey are
s t i ll only t he i ns t rument s of a larg er f at e,
of
whi ch t hey are as much t he vi ct i ms as t he di rect ors . Does n't
t he s educer end up los i ng hi ms elf
i n hi s s t rat eg y; as i n an emo-
t i onal
labyri nt h? Does n't he i nvent t hat s t rat eg y i n order t o
los e
hi ms elf i n i t ? And he who beli eves
hi ms elf t he g ame's mas t er,
i s n't he
t he f i rs t vi ct i m of s t rat eg y's t rag i c myt h?
Cons i der
t he s educer's obs es s i on wi t h t he g i rl i n Ki erkeg aard's
Di ary of t he Seducer. An obs es s i on wi t h an
i nvi olat e, s t i ll as ex-
ual s t at e, a
charmed s t at e of g race . And becaus e s he i s
g raced,
one mus t f i nd g race
i n her
eyes ,
f or li ke God s he pos s es s es a
SUPERFICIAL
ABYSSES 99
matchless vantage . As a r esu lt, becau se natu r ally endowedwith
all sedu ction, she becomes the object of a savage challenge and
mu st be destr oyed.
The sedu cer 's calling is the exter mination of the
gir l's natu r -
al power by an ar tificial power
of
his own. He will deliber ately
u nder take to equ al or su r pass the natu r al power to which, in
spite of all that makes him appear as the sedu cer , he has su c-
cu mbedsince the beginning . His str ategy, his intention anddes-
tination ar e a r esponse to the you ng gir l's gr ace and
sedu ctiveness, to a pr edestination that is all the mor e power -
fu l becau se u nconsciou s, andthat mu st,
as
a r esu lt, be exor cized.
The last wor d cannot be left to natu r e : this, fu ndamentally,
is what is at issu e. Her exceptional, innate gr ace (which, like
the accu r sedshar e, is immor al) mu st be sacr ificed by the sedu cer ,
who
will
seek
with all
his skill to leadher to the point of er otic
abandon, the point at which she will cease to be a sedu ctive,
that is, danger ou s power .
The sedu cer by himself is nothing; the sedu ction or iginates
entir ely with
the
gir l . This
is
why
Johannes can
claim
to
have
lear ned ever ything fr om
Cor delia .
He
is not
being hypocr iti-
cal . The calcu lated sedu ction mir r or s the natu r al sedu ction,
dr awing fr om the latter as fr om its sou r ce, bu t all the better to
eliminate it .
This is also why he
does
not leave anything
to
chance, the
gir l being depr ived of initiative, a seemingly defenseless object
in the game of sedu ction . She has alr eady played her handbe
for e the sedu cer begins to play his . Ever ything has alr eady taken
place ; the sedu ction simply r ights a natu r al imbalance by tak-
ing u p the pr e-existing challenge constitu ted by the gir l's natu r al
beau ty and gr ace .
Sedu ction
now
changes
its
meaning. Instead of being an
im-
mor al andliber tine exer cise, a cynical deception for sexu al ends
(and thu s withou t gr eat inter est), it becomes mythical and ac-
qu ir es the dimensions
of
a sacr ifice . This
is
why the "victim's"
consent is so easily obtained. In her abandon she is, in a sense,
obeying the commands of a divinity whowants ever yfor ce to
be over tu r ned andsacr ificed, be it that
of
power
or
that
of
a natu r al sedu ctiveness, becau se all for ce, and that of beau ty
in
par ticu lar ,
is sacr ilegiou s . Cor delia is sover eign, and is
10 0
SEDUCTION
sacrificed t o her o wnso vereignt y. The reversibilit y o f sacrifice
co nst it ut es a
murdero us
fo rm
o f symbo lic exchange ; it spares
no t hing, no t evenlife it self, no r even
beaut y o r seduct io n,
which
is it s mo st dangero us fo rm . In t his sense, t he seducer canno t
claim t o be t he hero o f an ero t ic mast er plan; he is o nly t he
agent o f a pro cess t hat go es far beyo nd him. No r is t he vict im
ent irely inno cent , since, as a beaut iful and seduct ive virgin, she
is in herself a challenge which cano nly be met by her deat h
(o r her seduct io n, t he equivalent o f her murder) .
The Diary o f t he Seducer is t he, script o f a perfect crime. No ne
o f t he seducer's calculat io ns, no ne o f his mano euvres fail . It
all unfo lds wit h aninfallibilit y t hat is neit her real no r psycho -
lo gical, but
myt hical . The
art ifice's perfect io n, t he
apparent in-
evit abilit y t hat guides t he
seducer's act io ns,
simply
reflect s, as
in a mirro r, t he perfect io no f t he girl's innat e grace, and t he in-
exo rable necessit y o f her sacrifice . This do esn't result fro m any
specific perso n's st rat egy. It is fat e, Jo hannes being
o nly it s in-
st rument and, t herefo re,
infallible
.
There is so met hing imperso nal in every pro cess o f seduct io n,
as in every crime, so met hing rit ualist ic, so met hing supra-
subject ive and supra-sensual, t he lived experience, whet her o f
t he seducer o r
his vict im, being o nly it s unco nsio us reflect io n.
Dramat urgy wit ho ut -a subject . The rit ual execut io n o f a fo rm
t hat co nsumes it s subject s . This is why t he piece t akes o nbo t h
t he aest het ic fo rm o f a
wo rk
o f
art
. and t he rit ual
fo rm
o f a
crime .
In t he end, Co rdelia is seduced, delivered t o t he ero t ic pleas-
ures o f a night and t henabando ned . One must n't be surprised
at t his, no r co nsider Jo hannes, in. line wit h bo urgeo is psycho l-
o gy, a hat eful perso n. Seduct io n, being a sacrificial pro cess, ends
wit h a murder (t he deflo wering) - t ho ugh t he lat t er need no t
have t aken place. Fo r o nce Jo hannes is cert ain o f
his vict o ry,
Co rdelia is, fo r him, dead . It is t he impure seduct io n t hat ends
in lo ve and pleasure, and is, t herefo re, no lo nger a sacrifice. Sex-
ualit y might be reexamined in t his light , as t he eco no mic residue
o f
seduct io n's sacrificial pro cess, no t unlike t he residual po r-
t io n t hat in ancient sacrifices was left t o circulat e wit hin t he
economy. Sex then would be merely the discount or
balance
of a more fundamental process, a crime or sacrifice,
which fails
to attain total rev ersibility. Thegods
take their part ; humans share
what's left .
Theimpure seducer,
a DonJuan
or
Casanov a, dedicates him-
self to the accumulation of this residue. Flying from onesexu-
al conquest to another, he seduces for pleasurewithout
attaining
what Kierkegaard considered the " spiritual"
dimension
of
seduc-
tion - where the
challenge pushes the woman's seductiv e
resources and
powers
to
their limit, so that, in accord with a
carefully
laid
plan, they can be turned against themselv es .
Theintrigue
wherebyCordelia is slowly dispossessed of her
powers, makes onethink of the innumerable rites for the exor-
cism of female powers which canbe found throughout primi-
tiv e societies (Bettelheim) . To cast out women's
power
of
fertility,
to
encircle and circumscribe that power, and ev entually simu-
late and
appropriate it, is the purpose of the couv ades, the ar-
tificial inv aginations, excoriations and scarrings - all the
innumerable symbolic wounds (up to and including the
initia-
tion and institution of a newpower: political
power) for sup-
pressing the females' incomparable
" natural" adv antage. One
might also consider ancient Chinese ideas onsexuality, accord-
ing to which the male, by maintaining the orgasm in suspense,
draws into himself the power of the female yang .
In anycase, something has been giv en to
women that must
be
exorcized by a deliberate campaign to dispossess her of her
powers . Andfrom this " sacrificial" perspectiv e, there is no differ-
ence between feminine seduction and
the seducer's strategy:
they both
inv olv e the other's death and mental spoliation, the
other's abduction and the abduction of his or her power. It is
always the story of a
murder,
or better of
an aesthetic and sacrifi-
cial immolation since, as Kierkegaard suggests,
it always occurs
at a
spiritual lev el.
SUPERFICIAL ABYSSES 10
1
Concerning the " spiritual" pleasure of seduction.
The scenario of seduction is, according to
Kierkegaard,
spiritual . It demands a certain spirit in the eighteenth century
10
2 SEDUCTION
sense, that i s to say, i ntelli gence, charmandrefi nement, but also
i n the
modern sense of
the
Wi tz or stroke of
wi t
.
Seducti on never plays
on
the other's desi res
or
amorous
procli vi ti es, thi s bei ng vulgar, carnal, mechani cal and, i n short,
uni nteresti ng. Everythi ng must respondby subtle'allusi ons, wi th
all the si gns enmeshedi n the trap. Thus the seducer's arti fi ces
reflect the gi rl's seducti ve nature, as though the latter was part
of an i roni c stage producti on, a decepti on made to measure,
to
whi ch she would, effortlessly,
come
andbe'caught .
It i s not, therefore, a matter of a frontal attack, but of a di -
agonal seducti on that gli des li ke a (brush?) stroke (and what
i s more seducti ve than a stroke of wi t?), wi th i ts vi vaci ty and
economy, andi ts use of the same dupli cated materi als, to use
Freud's terms. The seducer's weapons are the same as those of
the gi rl, but turnedagai nst her; andi t i s thi s reversi bi li ty that
gi ves the
strategy
i ts spi ri tual appeal .
It has been sai d, andjusti fi ably so, that mi rrors are spi ri tual
- the reflecti on i tself bei ng a stroke of wi t . Forthe mi rror's spell
does not li e wi th the fact that one recogni zes oneself
i n i t -
i n i tself a rather
appalli ng
coi nci dence - but
wi th the i roni c
andmysteri ous
stroke
of such
a redupli cati on. Nowthe seducer's
strategy i s preci sely that of the mi rror. That i s why, ulti mately,
he doesn't decei ve anyone, andwhy he neverdecei ves hi m-
self: for the mi rror i s i nfalli ble (i f hi s manoeuvres and
snares
were taken
from
outsi de,
he wouldundoubtedly commi t some
error).
Consi deranotherstroke of thi s type, worthy of bei ng i ncluded
i n
the
annals
of
seducti on: the same letter wri tten by two di ffer-
ent women- andwri tten not out of perversi ty, but
from
a
trans-
parency of heart andsoul . Both letters contai n the same amorous
emoti ons, these emoti ons are real, they each have thei r own
quali ty. But the latter must not be confusedwi th the "spi ri tu-
al" pleasure that emanates from the mi rroreffect producedby
the two letters, andbetween the two
women, whi ch
i s,
stri ct-
ly speaki ng, a pleasure of seducti on. It i s an enti rely di fferent,
li veli er, more subtle rapture than love. The emoti ons born of
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 10
3
desire can never equal the exuberant, secret joy
one experiences
when playing with desire itself . Desire
is
simply a ref erent lik e
any other, which seduction immediately betters and transcends,
precisely by virtue of its its spirit . Seduction is a strok e : here
it short-circuits the two recipients in a k ind of imaginary over-
printing, wherein desire perhaps conf uses them . At any rate,
this strok e
conf uses desire, renders it indistint, producing a
slight
giddiness that proceeds f rom asuperior indif f erence,
and
f rom
the laughter that undermines its still too serious entanglement .
To seduce, then, is to mak e both the f igures and the signs
- the latter held by their own illusions - play amongst them-
selves . Seduction is never the result of physical attraction, acon-
junction of af f ects or an economy of desire . For seduction to
occur an illusion must intervene
and
mix
up the images ; a strok e
has to bring disconnected things together, as if in a dream, or
suddenly disconnect undivided things . Thus the second woman
is
irresistibly
tempted to rewrite the f irst letter, as if a tempta-
tion could f unction autonomously
and
ironically,
as
if
the very
idea could be seductive. Agame without end, in which the signs
participate spontaneously, as if f rom a
continuous sense of iro-
ny. Perhaps the signs want to be seduced, perhaps they desire,
more prof oundly than men, to seduce and be seduced .
Perhaps signs are not destined to enter into f ixed oppositions
f or meaningf ul ends, that being only their present destination .
Their
actual destiny is perhaps quite dif f erent : to seduce each
other and,
thereby, seduce us . If such is the case, an entirely
dif f erent logic would lie behind
their'secret circulation.
Can one imagine a theory that would treat signs in terms of
their
seductive attraction, rather than their contrasts and op-
positions? Which would break with
the specular nature of the
sign and the encoumbrance of the ref erent? An in which the
terms
would play amongst themselves within the f ramework
of an enigmatic duel and an inexorable
reversibility?
Suppose that all the major, diacritical oppositions with which
we order our world were traversed by seduction, instead of be-
ing based
on contrasts and oppositions . Suppose not just that
104 SEDUCTION
the
feminine seduces the masculine, but that absence seduces
presence, cold seduces hot, the subject seduces the object, and
to
be sure, the reverse . For seduction supposes that minimum
reversibility which puts an end to every fixed opposition
and,
therefore, every conventional semiology . Towards an inverted
semiology ?
One might imagine (but why imagine it, when it occured
in
ancient Greece) that gods and mortals, instead of
being sepa-
rated by the moral aby ss of
religion, sought to seduce each other
and, indeed, maintained no
other relations but those of seduc-
tion . Moreover, perhaps
all
the
:major distinctions we use to
decipher the
world and confine it within its prison of mean-
ing, those
between, for example, good and evil, or true and
false
- all the terms that have been so carefully distinguished
at such enormous costs of energy - have not alway s
succeed-
ed. The real catastrophes, the real
revolutions alway s consist
in the implosion of one of
these two-term sy stems. Auniverse,
or fragment of
the universe, then comes to an end - though
usually this implosion occurs slowly , the
terms being gradual-
ly worn down . At present we are witnessing
the slow and simul-
taneous erosion of all the polar
structures, and the movement
towards a universe
that is losing the very dimension of
mean-
ing. Disinvested,
disenchanted, and disaffected - the end of the
world as
will and representation .
But this neutralization is not seductive .
Seduction pushes the
terms towards each other, and unites them at a
point of maxi-
mum energy and charm; it does not blur them together
in a
state of minimum intensity.
Nowsuppose that wherever relations of
opposition presently
exist, relations of
seduction are put into play . Imagine a flash
of
seduction that causes the polar or
differential, transistorized
circuits of meaning to melt? There
are examples of of a non-
diacritical semiology
(that is to say , a non-semiology ) . The
ele-
ments of the ancient cosmogony; for
example, did not enter
into structural relations of classification
(water/fire, air/earth,
etc. ) : they
were not "distinctive" elements, but "attractive"
ele-
ments that seduced each other : water
seduces fire, water
seduced by fire .
Such
seduction is still quite strong in the duel,
relations of
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 10 5
non-individualized castes and hierarchies, and in the analogi-
cal systems
that preceded our logical systems of differentiation .
And no doubt logical sequences
of
meaning
are
still
worked
over by analogical sequences of seduction - like an immense
flash of inspiration that,
at a
single
stroke, brings opposites
together . Beneath meaning lies the secret circulation of seduc-
tive analogies .
We are not, however, dealing with a newversion of univer-
sal attraction . The diagonals
or transversals of seduction may
well break the oppositions between terms
; they do not lead
to fused or con-fused relations ( that' s mysticism) but to dual
relations . It is not a matter
of a mystical fusion of subject or
object, or signifier and signified, masculine and feminine, etc . ,
but of a seduction, that
is, a duel and agonistic relation .
A mirror
hangs on the opposite wall
she does not reflect on it
but the mirror
reflects her
Diary of the Seducer3
The
seducer' s strategm will be to merge with the mirror
on
the opposite wall in which the girl is reflected . She
does not
give it a thought, but
the mirror is reflecting on her.
One should distrust the humility of mirrors . The humble ser-
vants of appearances,
they can reflect only the objects that face
them, without being able to conceal themselves
. The whole
world is grateful
to them ( except in death when, for this rea-
son, one veils them); they are
the watchdogs of appearance.
But their faithfulness
is specious, for they are waiting for some-
one to catch himself in their reflection .
One does not easily
forget their
sidelong gaze. They recognize you, and when
they
surprise you when you
least expect it, your time has come.
Such is the seducer' s
strategy : he gives himself the humility
of the mirror, but a skilful mirror,
like Perseus' shield, in which
3 . Soren Kierkegaard, Diary of the Seducer, appended
to
EitherlOr
( Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1971) p. 3 11 .
lob SEDUCTION
Medusa found
herself petrified. The g irl too is g oing to fall cap-
tiv e to
the mirror that reflects and analyzes her' , without her
knowledg e.
He who does not know how to compass
. a g irl
about so that she loses sig ht of
ev erything which
he does not
wish her to see, he who does not
know how to poetize
himselfin a g irl' s feeling so
that it is from her that ev erything issues as he
wish-
es it, he is and remains a
bung ler ; I do not
beg rudg e
him his enjoyment . Abung ler he' is
and
remains, a seducer, something one can
by
no
me-
ans call me. I am an aesthete, an
eroticist, one who
has understood the nature and
meaning of lov e,
who believ es in lov e and
knows it from the g round
up . . . I
know,
too,
that the hig hest conceiv able
en-
joyment lies
in being lov ed. . . To poetize
oneself
into a young g irl is an art, to poetize
oneself out
of her is a masterpiece. (pp. 363-64)
Seduction
is nev er linear, and does not wear
a mask (that is
v ulg ar seduction) - it is oblique.
. . what weaponis so sharp, so penetrating , so,
flash-
ing in action, and hence so deceptiv e,
as the eye?
You feint a hig h
quart, as fencers say, and attack
in second. . . The moment of
the feint is indescrib-
able. The opponent,
as it were, feels the slash,
he
is touched!
Aye, that is true, but in
quite a differ-
ent
place from where he thoug ht . (p .
314)'
I do not
meet her, I touch only the periphery of
her existence I prefer to arriv e a
little early and
then to meet her, if
possible, at the door or' upon
the steps as
she is coming and I am leav ing ,
when
I pass her by indifferently. This is
the first net in
which she must be
entang led. I nev er stop her on
the street ;
I may bow to her, but I nev er come
; close
to
her, but always keep my distance. Our
continu-
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 107
a l encounters
a re certa inl y noticea bl e to her; she
does indeed perceive
tha t a new
body
ha s a p-
pea red on
her horizon whose orbit in a stra ngel y
imperturba bl e ma nner a f f ects her own disturbing-
l y, but she ha s no conception of the l a wgovern-
ing this movement; she is ra ther incl ined to l ook
a bout to see
if
she
ca n discover the point control l -
ing it, but she is a s ignora nt of
being hersel f this
f ocus a s
if
she were a China ma n
. (pp.
336-37)
There is a nother
type
of
indirect reverbera tion : hypnosis, a
sort of
psychic mirror in which, once a ga in, the girl is ref l ect-
ed without her a wa reness, under someone el se' s ga ze :
Toda y my eyes ha ve f or the f irst time rested upon
her. Someone ha s sa id tha t sl eep ca n ma ke the eye-
l ids so
hea vy tha t they
cl ose of
themsel ves ; perha ps
my gl a nce ha s a simil a r ef f ect upon Cordel ia . Here
eyes cl ose, a nd yet a n obscure f orce
stirs within
her.
She does not see tha t
I a m l ooking a t her, she
f eel s it, f eel s it through her whol e body. Her eyes
cl ose,
a nd it is night
;
but within her it
is
l uminous
da y. (pp. 360-61)
This obl iquity of seduction is not dupl icity. Where a l inea r
movement knocks a ga inst the wa l l of consciousness a nd a c-
quires onl y mea ger ga ins, seduction ha s the obl iquity of a drea m
el ement or stroke of wit, a nd a s such tra verses the psychic
universe a nd its dif f erent l evel s in a
singl e
dia gona l , in order
to touch,
a t the f a r end, the unknown bl ind spot, the secret
tha t l ies sea l ed, the enigma tha t constitutes the girl , even to
hersel f.
Seduction
ha s
two simul ta neous moments, or
two insta nts
of a singl e moment. Her entire cha ra cter, a l l her f eminine
resources must be mobil ized, a nd simul ta neousl y suspended.
It
is
not a question of surprising her in the pa ssivity of her in-
nocence; her f reedom of a ction must be in pl a y. Beca use it is
by this f reedom, by its movement - a nd by the curves a nd sud-
den twists impa rted to it by seduction - tha t she must, seem-
ingl y sponta neousl y, rea ch tha t point where, unbeknownst to
10
8 SEDUCTION
herself,
she will be lo st . Seduct io n engages a fat e ;
and in o rder
fo r it t o be realized, she must be
co mplet ely free, but in her
freedo m. she must reach o ut , as if
so mnabulist ically, t o wards
her o wn fall . The girl must
be :plunged int o t his seco nd
st at e
which reduplicat es
t he first , t he st at e o f grace and
so vereignt y.
And t his seco nd,
so mnambulist ic st at e must be sust ained,
so
t hat a passio n,
o nce awakened and int o xicat ed
wit h it self, slips
int o t he t rap fat e has set fo r it . "Her eyes
clo se, and it is night ,
but wit hin her it is lumino us
day. "
Omissio ns, denials,
deflect io ns, decept io ns,
diversio ns and
humilit y - all aimed
at pro vo king t his seco nd
st at e, t he secret
o f t rue seduct io n
. Vulgar seduct io n might
pro ceed by persis-
t ence, but t rue
seduct io n pro ceeds by
absence ; o r bet t er it
in-
vent s akind o f curved space,
where t he signs are deflect ed
fro m
t heir t raject o ry and ret urned t o
t heir so urce . This st at e o f
sus-
pense is essent ial
: it is t he mo ment o f t he girl' s
disarray befo re
what await s her, even as
she kno ws -and t his is so met hing
new
and already fat al - t hat
so met hing await s her. A
mo ment o f high
int ensit y, a
"spirit ual" mo ment ( in
Kierkegaard' s sense),
simi-
lar t o t hat
in games o f chance bet ween t he
t hro w and t he mo -
ment
when t he dice st o p
ro lling .
Thus t he first t ime
he hears her give o ut
her address, he re-
fuses t o remember
it :
I will no t list en t o it ,
fo r I do no t wish t o deprive
myself o f surprise ; I
shall cert ainly meet her again
in life, I shall reco gnize
her, and perhaps she will
reco gnize me . . . If she
do es no t reco gnize me,
if
her glance do es
no t immediat ely co nvince
me o f
t hat , t hen
I shall surely find an o ppo rt unit y t o
lo o k
at
her fro m t he side . I pro mise t hat
she will remem-
ber
t he sit uat io n. No impat ience,
no greediness,
everyt hing sho uld be
enjo yed in leisurely draught s
;
she is
marked o ut , she shall be run do wn
. ( p. 312)
The seducer is playing
wit h himself. At t his
po int it is no t
even a ruse, wit h t he
seducer being t he o ne
delight ed at t he
seduct io n' s
deferment . This, t he
pleasure o f t he
appro ach,
sho uld no t be slight ed ; fo r
it is in t his int erval t hat
he begins
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 10 9
t o dig t he p it int o which she will f a ll . It
is
lik e f encing :
o ne needs
a
f ield f o r
t he f eint . Thr o ugho ut t his p er io d, t he
seducer ,
f a r
f r o m seek ing
t o clo se in o n her , seek s t o ma int a in his dist a nce
by va r io us p lo ys :
he do es no t sp ea k dir ect ly t o her but o nly
t o her a unt , a nd t hen a bo ut t r ivia l
o r st up id subject s ; he neu-
t r a liz es ever yt hing by ir o ny a nd f eigned
p eda nt icism; he f a ils
t o r esp o nd t o a ny f eminine o r er o t ic mo vement , a nd even f inds
her a sit co m
suit o r t o disencha nt her o f her lo ve .
To
k eep
o ne's
dist a nce,
t o
p ut her
o f f , t o disencha nt a nd deceive her ,
t o
t he
p o int wher e she her self
t a k es t he init ia t ive a nd br ea k s o f f her
enga gement ,
t hus co mp let ing t he seduct io n a nd
cr ea t ing t he
idea l sit ua t io n f o r
her t o t a l a ba ndo n .
The seducer k no ws ho w
t o let t he signs ha ng
.
He k no ws t ha t
t hey
a r e f a vo ur a ble o nly when lef t susp ended, a nd will
mo ve
o f t hemselves t o wa r ds
t heir a p p o int ed dest iny. He do es no t use
t he signs up a ll a t o nce, but wa it s f o r
t he mo ment when t hey
will a ll r esp o nd, o ne a f t er t he o t her ,
cr ea t ing a n ent ir ely unique
co njunct ur e o f giddiness a nd co lla p se.
When
she is in t he co mp a nyo f t he t hr ee Ja nsens
she t a lk s ver y
lit t le, t heir cha t t er evident ly bo r es
her , a nd cer t a inly t he smile
o n
her
lip s seems t o
indica t e it . I a m r elying
o n t ha t smile.
To da y I went t o Mr s. Ja nsen's . I ha lf
o p ened t he
do o r wit ho ut k no ck ing . . . She sa t a lo ne a t t he p i-
a no . . . I might
ha ve r ushed in, seiz ed t he
mo ment
- t ha t wo uld ha ve
been f o o lish . . . . She is evident -
ly co ncea ling t he f a ct t ha t she
p la ys. . . When so me-
t ime
I
ca n t a lk mo r e co nf ident ia lly wit h her , I sha ll
slyly lea d her
t o
t his
p o int a nd let her f a ll int o t he
t r a p . (p p. 338-9) .
He ha s no t r ea ched t he vulga r
diver sio ns, t he bit s o f liber -
t ine br a vur a ,
t he er o t ic whims (which will o ccup y a n
incr ea s-
ingly la r ge p a r t o f t he st o r y, wit h
Co r delia ha r dly ever a p p ea r ing
excep t benea t h a lively, liber t ine ima gina t io n
: "To lo ve o ne a lo ne
is t o o lit t le ; t o lo ve t hem a ll
suggest s t he light ness o f a sup er f i-
cia l cha r a ct er ; but
t o lo ve a s ma ny a s p o ssible . . . Wha t p lea sur e!
Wha t a lif e!") He ha s no t
a cceded t o t he f r ivo lo us seduct io n
1 1 0 SEDUCTION
which is not part of the "grand game" of s eduction, with its
philos ophy of obliquity and divers ion. The "grand" s eduction
may make its way s ecretly along the s ame paths as vile s educ-
tion,
but
will play
them as s us pens e or parody. Confus ion is
not
pos s ible : the one is a game of love, the other a s piritual
duel
. A ll the interludes only
accentuate
the s low, calculated,
and inevitable rhythm of "high" s eduction. The mirror s till
hangs on the oppos ite wall, even if we are
no
longer aware of
it - and time in Cordelia's heart is on the march.
The proces s s eems to reach its lowes t point with the~s educer's
betrothal. Here one has the impres s ion of having attained a point
of extreme numbnes s , where the s educer pus hes the s ubter-
fuge of dis enchantment or dis s uas ion to an almos t pervers e
degree of mortification . A nd one has the impres s ion that, as
a res ult, Cordelia's s pirit is broken, her femininity run down,
neutralized
by
the illus ions that s urround her. The moment of
the engagement - which "has
s o
much importance for a young
girl that her entire s oul can be fixed on it, like that of a dying
man on his las t will" - this moment, Cordelia will live without
unders tanding, deprived of every reaction, muzzled, circum-
vented
.
One word, and s he would have laughed at me, one
word, and s he would have been moved, one word,
and s he would have
fled from me ; but no word
cros s ed my lips , I remained s tolidly s erious , and
kept exactly
to
the ritual . A s regards my engage-
ment, I do not boas t that it is poetic, it is in every
way philis tine and bourgeois . So now I 'am en-
gaged; s o is Cordelia (s o is
Cordelia!) and that is
all s he knows about the whole matter . (pp. 370-71 )
It is all a kind of ordeal, as found in initiation rites .
The in-
itiated mus t pas s through a phas e that marks his . or her death,
not as pathetic s uffering, but as nothingnes s , as emptines s -
the final moment before the pas s ion's illumination and the erotic
abandon. In a s ens e, the s educer adds an
as cetic moment to
the aes thetic movement he imparts to the whole
.
SUPERFICIAL
ABYSSES III
Generally I can assure any
g i rl whoentrusts her-
self to me a perf ect aestheti c conduct : only
i t
ends
wi th her bei ng decei ved . . . (p . 375)
There i s a sort of humour i n the f act that the eng ag ement
coi nci des wi th the apparent di sappearance of
all
that
was at
stake i n the seducti on
. What i n the bourg eoi s vi si on of the
ni neteenth century
consti tutes a
joyous
prelude to marri ag e,
i s here an austere i ni ti ati on i nto the subli me ends of passi on
(whi ch are, si multaneously, the calculated ends of seducti on)
by the somnabuli st passag e across the deserts of betrothal .
(Don't f org et that the eng ag ement was a cruci al moment i n the
li f e of many a romanti c,
i ncludi ng
Ki erkeg aard,
but
also
and
more dramati cally
of
Klei st, Holderli n, Novali s and Kaf ka. Apai n-
f ul moment
of
seemi ng ly endless f rustrati on, the almost mys-
ti cal passi on sustai ned by the eng ag ement was perhaps (let us
drop
all talk of sexual i mpotence!) a matter of suspensi on,
of
a suspended enchantment, haunted by the f ear of sexual or
matri moni al di senchantment . )
However, Johannes conti nues to li ve the i nvi si ble dance of
seducti on, even as hi s objecti ve and
i ts presence appear to
have
f aded. Indeed, he wi ll never li ve i t more i ntensely, f or i t i s here,
i n the nulli ty, i n the
absence, i n
the mi rror's
f ace that
i ts tri -
umphi s assured: she cannot but break of f her f ormer eng ag e-
ment and throwherself i nto hi s arms . All the f i re of her passi on
li es revealed, just beneath the surf ace, i n i ts transparence. He
wi ll never ag ai n f i nd i t as beauti f ul as i n thi s premoni ti on, f or
at thi s moment the g i rl sti ll remai ns predesti ned - whi chwi ll
no long er be the case once thi s moment i s over.
Nowthe g i ddi ness of seducti on, as of every passi on, li es above
all wi th i ts predesti nati on . The latter alone provi des that f atal
quali ty at the basi s of all pleasure - that stroke of wi t, as i t were,
whi ch
ti es, as i f
i n
advance, a movement of the soul to i ts des-
ti ny and i ts death. Here li es the seducer's tri umph. And here,
i n the i nvi si ble dance of the betrothal, one i s able to see hi s
knowledg e of seducti on, of true seducti on,
as
a spi ri tual
economy.
My relati on to her i s that of an unseen partner i n
1 1 2 SEDUCTION
a dance which is danced by. only one, when it
s hould r eally be danced by t wo. She moves
as
in
a dr eam, and yet s he dances wit h anot her , and t his
ot her is mys elf, who, in s o far as I am vis ibly
pr es ent , am invis ible, in s o far I am invis ible, am
vis ible. Themovement s of t he dance r equir e a par t -
ner , s he
bows t o
him, s he
t akes his hand, s he flees ,
s he dr aws near him
again
.
It ake her hand, I com-
plet e her t hought
as
if it wer e complet ed'in her -
s elf. She moves t o t he inner melody of her own
s oul ; I am only t he occas ion for her movement .
Iam not amor ous , t hat would only awaken her ;
Iam
eas y,
yielding, imper s onal,
almos t
like a
mood. (p . 376)

.
Thus s educt ion is pr es ent ed in a s ingle movement as :
- a cons pir acy of power : a s acr ificial for m.
- a mur der and, ult imat ely, a per fect cr ime.
- a wor k of ar t : "Seduct ion cons ider ed as one of t he Beaux-
Ar t s " (like mur der ,
t o be
s ur e).
- a s t r oke
of
wit
or
flas h of ins pir at ion: a "s pir it ual" economy.
Wit h t he s ame duel complit y as a s t r oke of wit , her e ever y-
t hing is exchanged allus ively, wit hout being s pelled out , t he
equivalent of t he allus ive, cer emonial exchange, of a s ecr et
.
- an as cet ic
for m
of a
s pir it ual, but als o pedagogical or deal :
a s or t of
s chool
of pas s ion, a
s imult aneous ly er ot ic and ir onic
maieut ics .
I s hall always acknowledge t hat a young gir l is a
bor n
t eacher , fr om whor e
one
can always lear n,
if not hing els e, how t o deceive her - for one only
lear ns t his bes t fr om t he gir ls t hems elves . . . (pp .
382- 83)
Ever y young gir l is , in r elat ion t o t he labr yint h of
her hear t , an Ar iadne; s he holds t he t hr ead by
which one finds his way t hr ough it , but s he has
it , wit hout her s elf knowing howt o us e it . (p .
396)
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 11 3
-a formofduel orwar, anagonal form. It nevertakes the
form
of violence or a relation of force, but ofa wargame. In it one
discovers the two simultaneous movements of seduction,
as
found in every strategy:
So now thefirst warwith Cordelia begins, in which
I flee, andtherebyteach herto triumph in pursu-
ing me. I constantly retreat before her, andin this
retreat, I teach herthrough myselfto know all the
power oflove, its unquiet thoughts, its passion,
what
longing
is,
andhope, and impatient expec-
tation. . .
She
will gain
courage to believe
in love. . .
Shemust neversuspect that she owes this freedom
to me. . . Whenshe at last feels free, so free that she
is almost tempted to break with me, then the se-
cond
war
begins.
Now
she
has powerandpassion,
and the struggle becomes worthwhile to me.
Let her forsake me, the second war is just begin-
ning. . . Thefirst warwas
a
war
of
liberation,
it
was
only a game; the second is a war of conquest, it
is for life and death. (pp. 379-80)
Thestakes are all organized aroundthe girl as mythical figure.
Both adversary andobjective in this many-sided duel, she is,
therefore,
neither
a sex object norafigure ofthe Eternal
Femi-
nine -the twogreat, Westernreferences to womanare equally
foreign to seduction
.
And there is no more an ideal victim or.
ideal subject (the
girl
and
her
seducerrespectively), than there
is an executionerandvictim in a sacrifice. Thefascinationshe
exercises is that of a mythical figure, an enigmatic partner, a
protagonist equal
to
the
seducer
in
this
almost
liturgical
realm
of challenge and duel.
Howdifferent from
Les
Liaisons
Dangereuses!In Laclos
the
womanto be seduced appears as a stronghold to be taken, in
the
mannerofthe military strategy oftheperiod -the strategy
1 1 4 SEDUCTION
may be l es s s t at i c t han before, but t he objec t i ve remai ns t he
s ame, her s urrender. The Pres i dent e
i s a fort res s t o be
bes i eged,
and s he mus t fal l . There i s
no s educ t i on here - onl y s i egec raft .
Where t here i s s educ t i on i s not i n t he rel at i on bet ween
s educ er and vi c t i m, but i n
t hat
bet ween
t he s educ ers , de
Val mont and Mert eui l , who s hare a c ri mi nal c ons pi rac y by i n-
t erpos ed vi c t i ms . Si mi l arl y i n t he Marqui s de Sade, t here i s onl y
t he s ec ret s oc i et ygl ori fyi ng i n i t s c ri mes , whi l e t he vi c t i ms are
nul l i t i es .
There i s none of t he s ubt l e art of t he t urnaround whi c h al -
ready appears i n SunTs eu's Art of War, or i n zen phi l os ophy
and t he ori ent al mart i al art s . Or as here, i n s educ t i on, where
t he gi rl , her
pas s i on
and l i bert y, are very muc h
. a
part
of
t he
s t rat egy's unfol di ng . "She was
an
eni gma t hat , eni gmat i c al l y,
pos s es s ed i n her i t s own
res ol ut i on . "

i
In t hi s duel , everyt hi ng t urns on t he movement from et hi c s
t o aes t het i c s , from a nai ve t o a c ons c i ous pas s i on :
So far I s houl d c al l her pas s i on a nai ve pas s i on.
When t he c hange c omes , and Ibegi n
t o
draw bac k
i n earnes t t hen s he wi l l real l y mus t er al l her
res ourc es i n order t o c apt i vat e me. She has no way
t o ac c ompl i s h t hi s exc ept by means of t he ; erot i c ,
but t hi s wi l l nowappear on avery di fferent s c al e .
It
t hen bec omes
t he weapon i n her hand whi c h
s he s wi ngs agai ns t me. Then I have t he refl ec t ed
pas s i on . She fi ght s for her own s ake bec aus e s he
knows t hat
I
pos s es s t he
erot i c ; s he fi ght s for her
own
s ake
i n
order t o overc ome
me. She devel ops
i n hers el f a hi gher form of t he erot i c . What It aught
her t o s us pec t by i nfl ami ng
her, myc ol dnes s now
t eac hes her t o unders t and, but i n s uc h away
t hat
s he bel i eves s he di s c overed i t hers el f. Through t hi s
s he wi l l t ry t o t ake me by s urpri s e
; s he wi l l
be-
l i eve t hat her bol dnes s has out s t ri pped me, and
t hat s he has t hereby c aught me. Then her pas s i on
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 1 1
5
becomes d ef i n i t e, en er g et i c, con clusi ve, log i ca l ; her
k i ss t ot a l, her
embr a ce f i r m. ( p . 406)
The
et hi cs i s f or med of si mp li ci t y a n d n a t ur a ln ess ( i n clud -
i n g t he si mp li ci t y
of d esi r e), of whi ch t he g i r l' s n a i ve g r a ce a n d
sp on t a n ei t y
a r e a p a r t . The a est het i cs i s f or med of a r t i f i ce, t he
p la y of si g n s - i t i s sed uct i on .
Ever y et hi cs must r esolve i t self
i n t o a n a est het i cs. For Ki er k eg a a r d ' s
sed ucer , a s f or Schi ller ,
Hbld er li n , or even Ma r cuse, t he
p a ssa g e t o a est het i cs i s t he
hi g hest
movemen t g r a n t ed t he huma n sp eci es
. But t he sed ucer ' s
a est het i cs i s qui t e
d i f f er en t : i t i s n ot d i vi n e a n d t r a n scen d en t ,
but i r on i c a n d
d i a boli ca l ; i t d oes n ot ha ve t he f or m
of
a n
i d ea l,
but of a st r ok e of wi t ; i t
d oes
n ot
g o beyon d et hi cs; i t i s d ef lec-
t i on ,
i n f lect i on , sed uct i on , a n d t r a n sf i g ur a t i on ,
a s r ea li zed by
t he mi r r or of
d ecep t i on . Thi s, however , i s n ot
t o
sa y
t ha t t he
sed ucer ' s st r a t eg y i s
p er ver se; i t i s a p a r t of t ha t a est het i cs
of
i r on y
whi ch seek s t o t r a n sf or m a vulg a r ,
p hysi ca l er ot i ci sm i n t o
a p a ssi on ,
a n d st r ok e of wi t .
I ha ve n ot i ced t ha t shea lwa ys ca lls
me mi n e when
she wr i t es t o me; but she la ck s t he
cour a g e t o sa y
i t
t o
me.
Tod a y I beg g ed her t o d o i t , wi t h a ll
t he
i n si n ua t i n g
a n d er ot i c wa r mt h p ossi ble. She st a r t -
ed t o d o
so;
a n
i r on i c g la n ce, i n d escr i ba bly swi f t
a n d br i ef , wa s
en oug h t o ma k e i t i mp ossi ble f or
her , a lt houg h my
li p s ur g ed her wi t h a ll t hei r
mi g ht . Thi s mood i s en t i r ely n or ma l . ( p . 41 9)
Er ot i ca lly she i s comp let ely
equi p p ed f or t he st r ug -
g le, she f i g ht s wi t h t he d a r t s
of
her
eyes, wi t h t he
comma n d
of her br ows, wi t h t he secr et i ven ess
of
her f or ehea d , wi t h t he
eloquen ce of her bosom,
wi t h t he
d a n g er ous a llur emen t of t he embr a ce,
wi t h t he p r a yer
of
her
li p s, wi t h t he . smi le on her
f a ce, wi t h a ll t he sweet lon g i n g
of her en t i r e be-
i n g.
Ther e i s a p ower i n her , a n en er g y,
a s i f she
wer e a va lk yr i e; but t hi s
er ot i c f or ce i s i n t ur n t em-
p er ed by a cer t a i n la n g ui shi n g
wea k n ess whi ch i s
br ea t hed out over her. -
She must n ot be held t oo
lon g a t t hi s p ea k . . . ( p . 41 9)
1 1 6 SEDUCTION
Irony always prevents the mortal emotional
demonstrations
that anticipate the game's end and threaten to cut. short the
un-
tried possib ilities held b y each of the players.
Seduction alone
can deploy the latter, b ut
only
b y
keeping things in suspense,
b y an ironic clinamen, and b y that disillusion
which leaves the
field of aesthetics open .
Sometimes the seducer has
his weaknesses . Thus it happens
that in a surfeit of emotion he launches
into a panegyric to fe-
male b eauty in its infinite
divisib ility, detailed in its' minute erotic
variations (pp.
423-24), and then assemb led into a
single figure,
within the heated
imagination
of
an inflamed desire . Avision
of God -b ut
immediately taken up and~turned around
in the
imagination of
the Devil, in the cold imagination of
appearances .
Woman is man's
dream -God, moreover, drew her
from man
when he was asleep. She therefore has all the
traits of a dream,
and in her, one might say, the
diurnal scraps of the real com-
b ine to form a mirage.

'
She awakens first at the touch of love ;
b efore that
time she is a dream. Yet in
her dream life we can
distinguish two stages
: in the first love dreams
ab out her
; in the second, she dreams ab out
love
(p.
425)
The end comes when she has given herself
fully. She is dead,
she has lost the grace of her
appearance and b ecome her sex
;
she b ecomes a woman.
For one last moment . "[W]hen
she then
stands decked out as a
b ride, and all the magnificence of
her
attire pales b efore
her b eauty, and she herself
turns pale . . . "
(p . 431 ), she
still has the splendour of
appearances -b ut soon
it will b e
too late.
Such
is the metaphysical lot of the seducer
. Beauty, mean-
ing, sub stance, and ab ove
everything else, God are ethically
jealous of themselves.
Most things are ethically possessive
; they
keep their secrets, and
watch over their meanings .
Seduction,
b eing on
the side of the appearances and
the Devil, is aestheti-
cally possessive.
After the final ab andonment
(Cordelia ab andons
herself, and
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 11 7
she i s i mmedi ately abandoned),
Johannes asks
hi mself: "Have
I
been constantly fai thfu l to my pact i n my relati on to Corde-
li a? That i s to say, my pact wi th the aestheti c. For i t i s thi s whi ch
makes me strong, that I always have the i dea on my si de . . . Has
the
i nteresti ng
always been preserved? " (p. 432) . Merely to
sedu ce i s
i nteresti ng only i n the fi rst
degree ; bu t here
i t
i s
a
matter
of
what i s i nteresti ng i n the second
degree.
Thi s
dou -
bli ng i s the secret
of
the
aestheti cs .
Only
what i s
i nteresti ng
abou t the i nteresti ng has sedu cti on's aestheti c force.
In a sense, the sedu cer stri ves to have the gi rl's natu ral charms
ri se to and shi ne i n the world of pu re appearances, i . e. , i n the
sphere of sedu cti on - and there destroy them . For most thi ngs,
alas, have meani ng
and
depth;
bu t
only
some of them ri se to
the level of appearances, and
they
alone are tru ly sedu cti ve.
Sedu cti on li es i n the transformati on of thi ngs i nto pu re ap-
pearances.
That
i s
how
sedu cti on i s reali zed as
myth, i n
the gi ddi ness
of appearances, j u st
before
bei ng
commi tted to reali ty.
"Every-
thi ng i s symbol; I myself am a myth abou t myself, for i s i t not
as a myth that I hasten to thi s meeti ng? . . . Dri ve now for dear
li fe, even i f the horses drop dead, only not a si ngle second be-
fore we reach the place. " (p .
439)
Asi ngle ni ght, and i t's all over. "Ihope never to see her agai n. "
She gi ves everythi ng and falls, li ke those cou ntless vi rgi ns
of
Greek mythology who were transformed i nto flowers, and there-
by achi eved
a vegetati ve and lu gu bri ou s grace, the echo of the
sedu cti on grace
of
thei r fi rst li fe
. Bu t, adds Ki erkegaard's sedu cer
cru elly : ". . : the ti me i s past when a gi rl su fferi ng the pai n
of
a
fai thless love can be changed i nto a su nflower. " (p .
439)
And
i n a sti ll more
cru el and u nexpected manner : "If Iwere a god,
I wou ld do for her what Neptu ne di d for a nymph: I wou ld
change her i nto a man. " (p . 440) . In a word, the woman does
not exi st. Only the gi rl
exi sts by the su bli me natu re of her state,
and the man, by hi s power to destroy her.
Bu t the mythi cal passi on of sedu cti on does not cease to be
i roni c. It i s crowned wi th one last melancholy stroke : the ar-
1 1 8 SEDUCTION
rangement of the interior that will be the setting for the lovers'
abandon. One last moment of suspense as the
seducer brings
together
all
the scattered
lines
of
his strategy and contemplates
them as though before death. What should have been a
trium-
phant setting is already no more than the doleful
site of a defunct
story. Everything in this house is reconstituted so as to
seize
hold of Cordelia's imagination at a
stroke, at that final moment
when she is to be toppled.
There is the cabinet in which they
met, with the same sofa, the same lamp, the same
tea table, as
it was all "purported to be" yesterday,
and is here today, by vir-
tue of an
exact resemblance. On the open piano, on the music-
rest the same little Swedish melody - Cordelia
will enter by
the door at the back . Everything is
foreseen: she will discover
all the scenes they lived together recapitulated . The
illusion is
perfect. In fact, the game has reached
its
end,
butt the seducer
reaches
new heights of irony by bringing together all the threads
he has woven since the beginning
in one last display of fire-
works,
which is, at the same time, a parodic funeral
oration to
.
their consummated love.
After which Cordelia will no longer appear, except
in sever-
al desperate letters that open
the story, and even her despair
is
strange. She was not exactly deceived or
dispossessed, but
spiritually diverted by a game whose
rules she was not aware
of. She was played
with, as though under a spell. She
has the
impression of having been, without
realizing it, the trophy in
some very
intimate and devastating plot, the object of a spiritual
abduction. In effect, she was robbed of
her own seduction,
which was then turned against
her. Hers is a nameless fate, and
the stupor
that results is different from mere despair
.
Such victims were of a
quite distinct' nature.
. . . There was no visible change
in their appearance;
they maintained their customary
relationships, as
respected as ever, and yet they were
changed,
almost inexplicably to
themselves . . . Their lives
were not like those
snapped off or broken, but
they hadbecome introspective; lost
to others, they
vainly sought
to find themselves . ( p . 303)
THEFEAR
OF
BEING
SEDUCED
If seduction
is a passion or destiny , it is usually the opposite
passion that prevails -that of not being
seduced. We struggle
to
conf irm
ourselves in our truth : we f ight against that which
seeks to seduce us .
In this struggle all means are acceptable, ranging f rom relent-
lessly seducing the other in
order not to be seduced oneself ,
to pretending to be seduced in order to cut all seduction short.
The hy steric combines the passion of seduction with that
of
simulation . She
protects herself f rom seduction by of f ering
booby -trapped signs which, even as they put themselves f or-
ward in exaggerated
f ashion, cannot be believed . The scruples,
the excessive remorse, the pathetic advances and endless en-
treaties, her way
of
spinning
events so that they dissolve and
she herself becomes elusive, the
giddiness she imposes on
others, and the
deception -it is all seductive deterrence, whose
obscure objective is less to seduce than to never let oneself
seduce .
The
hy steric has no intimacy , emotions, or secrets. She is en-
tirely given
over to external blackmail, to the ephemeral but
total credibility of her "sy mptoms, "
the absolute need to be be-
12
0
SEDUCTION
lieved ( lik e the mythomaniac with his s tor ies ) but at
the s ame
time, to
dis appoint all belief - and this without appealing to
s ome
s har ed delus ion. An uncompr omis ing demand, but
com-
pletely ins ens itive as to its r es pons e . Ademand
that is put into
ques tion by its chor eogr aphy, and by the effect of
its s igns .
Seduction too mock s the tr uth of
s igns , but mak es it into a r ever -
s ible appear ance, while the hys ter ic plays with the s igns
but
without
s har ing them. It is as if s he appr opr iated the
entir e
pr oces s of
s eduction for her s elf; , as if s he was
bidding with her -
s elf, while leaving the other only the
ultimatum of her hys ter i-
cal conver s ion, without any pos s ible
r ever s ion. The hys ter ic
s ucceeds in mak ing her own body
a bar r ier to s eduction: a
s eductr es s par alyzed by
her own body and fas cinated by
her
own
s ymptoms . And who s eek s to petr ify other s in tur n, by
an
elus ivenes s that s eek s to allay s us picions , but
r emains only
a pathetic ps ychodr ama. If s eduction
is a challenge, hys ter ia is
black mail .
Mos t s igns and mes s ages
today s olicit us in this hys ter ical
man-
ner. They would
mak e-us -believe, mak e-us -s peak and
mak e-us -
come by dis s uas ion
. They would black mail us with a blind,
ps y-
chodr amatic tr ans action, us ing s igns devoid of
meaning, that
multiply and hyper tr ophy
pr ecis ely becaus e they no longer have
any s ecr ets or cr edibility
. Signs without faith, without affect or
his tor y, s igns
ter r ified at the idea of s ignifying - j us t as
the hys -
ter ic is
ter r ified at the idea of being s educed .
In r eality, the inner abs ence that inher es
in the s elf ter r ifies
the hys ter ic. She mus t dr ain her s elf,
with her continual play,
of this abs ence in the s ecr ecyof
which s he could be loved,
and
could love
her s elf . In this ways he for ms a mir r or behind
which
- near s uicide, but tur ning s uicide,
lik e ever ything els e, into a
bother s ome, theatr ical pr oces s
of s eduction - s he r emains
im-
mor tal in her
"s pectacular " domain.
The s ame
pr oces s , but r ever s ed, can be found
in anor exia,
fr igidity and impotence. By
tur ning one's body into a mir r or
- but a mir r or that has , as
it wer e, been tur ned agains t the
wall
by
effacing the potential s eductivenes s of
one's body - by dis -
enchanting and des exualizing it, one is
s till r es or ting to black -
mail and deliver ing
an ultimatum: "You will not s educe me,
I
dar e you to
tr y. " Seduction, however , s hows thr ough
in its ver y
negation, since the dare is one of its fundamental forms .
A
challenge must
be met with a response, (without wanting to)
a challenge has to let itself seduce - but here the game has been
closed down . And closed down all the more emphatically by
the body, by
its
dramatization of a refusal of seduction - while
the hysteric
gets out of the game by dramatizing a demand for
seduction . In both cases, however,
seduction,
whether
as
seducer or seduced, is denied .
The problem, therefore, is not one of sexual
or
alimentary
impotence, with its train of psychoanalytic reasons and unrea-
son, but concerns an impotence as regards seduction . The dis-
affection, neurosis, anguish and frustration encountered by
psychoanalysis comes
no doubt from being unable to love or
to be loved, from being unable
to give or take pleasure, but the
radical disenchantment comes from seduction and its failure.
Only those who lie completely outside seduction are ill, even
if
they remain fully capable of loving and making love. Psy-
choanalysis
believes it treats the disorders of sex and desire,
but in reality it is dealing with
the disorders of seduction (which
it has helped, not inconsiderably, to place
outside seduction
and imprison within the dilemma of sex) . The
most serious
defi-
ciencies always concern charm and not pleasure, enchantment
and not some vital or sexual satisfaction, the (game's) rule and
not the (symbolic) Law. To be deprived of seduction is the only
true form of castration .
Fortunately, the latter continuously fails
. Seduction rises like
the phoenix from the ashes, with the subject being unable to
prevent all this from again becoming,
as
with
anorexia or im-
potence, a last desperate attempt at seduction, and the
denial
from
again becoming a dare. Perhaps it is in these aggravated
forms of sexual self-denial
that seduction expresses itself in its
purest form, since it still asks the other
to : "Prove to me that
it's not just a matter of ` that : "
SUPERFICIAL ABYSSES 12 1
There are other passions opposed
to
seduction,
though for-
tunately, they
too usually fail when taken to extremes . The pas-
sion for collecting, for example, the fetishism
of the collector.
12 2 SEDUCTION
It s
ant agonis t ic af f init y wit h s educt ion is s t rong, perhaps
be-
caus e
it
t oo
involves a game wit h rules , whos e int ens it y is s uch
t hat it can s ubs t it ut e it s elf f or any ot her game. For
it
t oo
invokes
a pas s ion f or an abs t ract ion t hat
def ies every moral law, in
order t o maint ain t he rigid ceremonial of
t he clos ed univers e
wit hin which t he s ubject
conf ines hims elf.
The collect or is
pos s es s ive . He s eeks exclus ive right s over t he
dead object
wit h which he appeas es his f et is his t pas s ion . Reclu-
s ion
and conf inement : bey ond all els e he is collect ing hims elf
.
And he is not t o be dis t ract ed f rom his madnes s ,
s ince his love
of
t he object , t he amorous s t rat agems wit h
which he s urrounds
it , dis play a hat red and f ear of s educt ion .
And not jus t t he s educ-
t ivenes s of t he object : he is jus t as
repelled by any s educt ion
t hat might emanat e f rom
hims elf.
The Collect or, t he f ilm and
novel, illus t rat e t his delirium. The
prot agonis t ,
being unable t o s educe or be loved (but
does he
want s educt ion
and t he s pont aneit y of love? cert ainly
not - he
want s t o f orce t he s educt ion,
he want s t o f orce love) , kidnaps
a y oung woman and
conf ines her in t he bas ement of his coun-
t ry hous e,
which has been s pecially equipped f or t he purpos e
.
He ins t alls her, cares f or her, s urrounds her wit h
numerous
court es ies , but checks
all at t empt s at es cape, out s mart s all her
rus es , and
will
s pare
her only if s he admit s hers elf def eat ed and
s educed,
only if , in t he, end,
She
loves him s pont aneous ly
. In
t ime,
however, wit h t his f orced promis cuit y , an
indecis ive and
t roubled connivence f orms bet ween t hem
- and one evening
he- invit es her t o dine ups t airs , wit h all precaut ions
t aken . And
what happens ? She genuinely
t ries
t o
s educe him and of f ers
hers elf t o him. Perhaps s he
loves himat t his moment , perhaps
s he only
want s
t o
dis arm him. Bot h no doubt . 'But
what ever
t he cas e, her behaviour provokes a
panic react ion, and he hit s
her, ins ult s her and t hrows
her back in t he cave. . He no
longer
res pect s
her, he undres s es her and t akes pornographic
pict ures
which he places in a phot o album (he
collect s but t erf lies , and
has s hown her his collect ion
wit h pride) . She get s s ick and f alls
int o a s ort of
coma : he no longer cares f or
her : s he dies and
he buries her in his y ard . In t he las t s cene,
he is s een looking
f or anot her woman t o
kidnap and s educe at what ever cos t .
Aneed t o be loved,
but an inabilit y t o be s educed.
When,
SUPERFICIAL ABYSSES 12
3
f i n a l l y , the woma n i s
s educed ( i t i s en ough tha t s he wa n ts to
s educe hi m) he ca n n ot a ccept hi s vi ctory :
he pref ers to s ee i t
a s a s exua l
ma l edi cti on a n d pun i s hes her. It i s n ot
a ques ti on
of i mpoten ce ( i t i s n ever
a ques ti on of i mpoten ce) . He pref ers
the pos s es s i ve
s pel l ca s t by a col l ecti on of
dea d objects - the
dea d s ex object bei n g
a s bea uti f ul a s a butterf l y wi th
f l ores -
cen t wi n gs - to the s educti on
of a l i vi n g bei n g whowoul d de-
ma n d hi s
l ove i n return . He pref ers the
mon oton ous f a s ci n a ti on
of the
col l ecti on , the f a s ci n a ti on wi th dea d
di f f eren ces , thi s ob-
s es s i on wi th the
s a me, over the s educti on
of
the
other. Thi s
i s why on e
s en s es f romthe begi n n i n g tha t
s he wi l l di e, n ot be-
ca us e he i s a da n gerous
ma dma n , but beca us e he i s
l ogi ca l , moti -
va ted by a n i rrevers i bl e
l ogi c. Tos educe wi thout bei n gs educed
- wi thout
revers i bi l i ty.
In thi s
ca s e, on e of the twoterms mus t
di e, a n d i t i s a l wa y s
the s a me s i n ce the
other i s a l rea dy dea d . The other i s i mmor-
ta l a n d i n des tructi bl e, a s i n every
pervers i on . Thi s i s i l l us tra ted
by the f a ct
tha t the f i l m en ds where i t
bega n ( a n d n ot wi thout
humour -pos s es s i ve
peopl e, l i k e pervers e peopl e, ha ve
a good
s en s e of humour outs i de the
s phere of thei r obs es s i on , i n cl udi n g
i n
the mi n uti a e of thei r proceedi n gs )
. In a n y ca s e, the col l ec-
tor ha s
en cl os ed hi ms el f wi thi n a n i n s ol ubl e
l ogi c: a l l the s i gn s
of l ove s he ca n
gi ve hi mwi l l be i n terpreted i n
a con tra ry ma n -
n er. An d the
mos t ten der wi l l be the mos t s us pect .
He
mi ght
perha ps be s a ti s f i ed wi th the
a ppropri a te s i gn s , but he ca n n ot
bea r the gen ui n e en ti cemen ts
of l ove. Wi thi n hi s l ogi c, s he ha s
s i gn ed her
own dea th wa rra n t.
Thi s i s n ot a s tory
a bout s a di s m - i t i s toomovi n g. Who
s a i d
tha t the bes t proof of
l ove i s to res pect the other a n d hi s
or
her
des i res ? Perha ps the pri ce
pa i d by bea uty a n d s educti on
i s to be
con f i n ed a n d put to dea th, beca us e
they a re too da n -
gerous , a n d
beca us e on e wi l l n ever be a bl e to ren der her
wha t
s he ha s gi ven . On e ca n then on l y
rewa rd her wi th her dea th .
In a s en s e, the gi rl
recogn i zes thi s s i n ce s he res pon ds
to thi s
hi gher s educti on of f ered
her i n the meta phor
of
her
con f i n e-
men t . It
i s jus t tha t s he ca n n ot res pon d
except by of f eri n g her-
s el f s exua l l y - a n d thi s
a ppea rs tri vi a l rel a ti ve to the cha l l en ge
s he hers el f pos es
by her bea uty. Sexua l
pl ea s ure wi l l n ever a bol -
i s h the n eed f or s educti on .
Formerl y a l l morta l s were obl i ged
12 4 SEDUCTION
t o redeem t heir living
bo dies wit h a sac rif ic e ; t o day
all seduc -
t ive f o rms, perhaps
all living f o rms, have t o redeem
t hemselves
by
t heir deat h . This is a symbo lic law -
whic h is, mo reo ver,
no t a law but
an unavo idable rule, t hat is,
we adhere t o it wit ho ut
gro unds,
as so met hing arbit rary yet
o bvio us, and no t in ac c o rd
wit h so me
t ransc endent princ iple.
Sho uld o ne c o nc lude t hat
every at t empt at seduc t io n
ends
wit h t he murder o f t he
o bjec t , o r t hat it always -
and t his is
a variat io n o n
t he same t heme - invo lves an
at t empt t o drive
t he
o t her mad? Is t he spell o ne
exerc ises o ver t he o t her always
harmf ul? Is o ne o nly seeking t o
avenge t he spell,t hat t he
o t her
exerc ises o ver yo u? Is t he gams
: being played here a
game o f
lif e o r deat h, o r at least c lo ser t o
deat h t han t he serene
exc hange
o f sexual pleasure? To
seduc e implies t hat t he
o t her will pay
f o r t he f ac t o f
being seduc ed, t hat is, f o r having
been t o rn f ro m
him/herself
and made int o an o bjec t o f
so rc ery. Here every-
t hing
o beys t he symbo lic rule o f
immediat e appo rt io nment
whic h dic t at es t he
sac rif ic ial relat io ns bet ween men
and t heir
go ds in c ult ures o f
c ruelt y, t hat is, relat io ns o f
rec o gnit io n and
dispensat io n
o f unlimit ed vio lenc e.
No w seduc t io n belo ngs t o
c ult ures
o f c ruelt y, and is t he
o nly c eremo nial f o rm o f
t he lat -
t er lef t t o us . It is what
draws o ur at t ent io n t o
deat h, no t in it s
o rganic and ac c ident al
f o rm, but as so met hing
nec essary and
rigo ro us,
t he inevit able c o nsequenc e o f t he
game's rules . Deat h
remains t he ult imat e
risk in every symbo lic pac t , be it
t hat sup-
po sed by a c hallenge, a
sec ret , a seduc t io n o r a
perversio n .
Seduc t io n and perversio n
maint ain subt le relat io ns . Do esn't
seduc t io n imply a f o rm o f
t he diversio n o f t he
wo rld's o rder?
And yet , o f
all t he passio ns, o f all t he
mo vement s o f t he so ul,
perversio n
is perhaps t he mo st o ppo sed
t o seduc t io n .
Bo t h are c ruel and
indif f erent relat ive t o sex . .
Seduc t io n is
so met hing t hat seizes ho ld o f
all pleasures, af -
f ec t s and
represent at io ns, andget s aho ld o f
dreams t hemselves
in o rder
t o rero ut e t hem f ro m
t heir primary c o urse,
t urning t hem
int o a sharper, mo re subt le
game, who se st akes
have neit her
an end no r an o rigin,
and c o nc erns neit her
drives no r desires .
SUPERFICIALABYSSES 12
5
If sex has a natural law, a
pleasure principle, then seduction
consists in denying that principle
and replacing it with a rule,
the arbitrary rule of a game. In this sense, seduction
is
per-
verse. The immorality
of perversion, lik e that of seduction, does
not come f rom abandoning
oneself to the joys of sex in oppo-
sition to all morality ; it
results f rom something more serious
and subtle, the abandonment of sex itself
as a ref erent and a
morality, even in its "joys. "
Play, not sensual pleasure . The pervert is cold when it comes
to sex. He transmutes
sex and sexuality into a ritual carrier, a
ritual and ceremonial
abstraction, a burning concern with signs
rather than an exchange
of desires. With the pervert, all the
intensity of sex is dispaced onto the signs and their
sequence,
just
as
in
Artaud this intensity is displaced
onto
the
theaterical
unf olding (the savage
irruption of signs into reality) . Their vio-
lence is ceremonial - and by
no means instinctual; only the
rite is violent, only the rules
of the game are violent, because
they put an end to the system f ormed by reality
. This is true
cruelty, and
has nothing to do with bloodlust. And in this sense,
perversion is
cruel
.
Perversion's power of f ascination
comes f rom a ritual cult
based on rules. The pervert is not someone who
transgresses
the law, but someone who eludes the law in
order to dedicate
himself to the rule, someone, then, who evades not
just
the
reproductive f inality
of
the
sexual order, but that order itself ,
with its symbolic law, in
order to link up with a regulated, ritu-
aliz ed, ceremonial f orm.
Perversion supposes a contract that is not a contract, that is,
a transaction between two
f ree agents, but a pact upholding
the obsevance of a rule . As such it establishes
a duel relation
(lik e
a challenge) that excludes all third parties (unlik e a con-
tract) and
cannot be dissociated into its individual terms. It
is
this pact, this
duel relation, with its web of obligationsf oreign
to the law, which renders perversion
invulnerable to the exter-
nal world - and impenetrable to analysis in
terms of the in-
dividual unconscious,
and thus to psychoanalysis . For the realm
of
the
rule is not part of psychoanalysis's jurisdiction, which
concerns law alone. Perversion,
on the other hand, belongs to
this other universe.
12 6 SEDUCTION
The duel relation abolishes the law of
exchange. The rules
of
perversion abolish sex's natural law. Arbitrary,
lik e the rules
of
a game, the contents are of little consequence
; what is es-
sential is the imposition of a rule or
sign, or system of signs,
whichabstracts from the sexual
order ( it might be, as with Klos-
sowsk i, coins that, oblivious to the natural law of exchange,
become
the ritual carrier of perversion) .
Hence the affinity between convents, secret
societies, Sade's
chateaux, and the universe ofperversion
. The oaths, the rites,
the interminable Sadian protocols.
What joins them together
is a cult oftherule - and
not its absence in licentiousness . And
within these rules, the
pervert or perverse couple can
admit
social
strains and distortions without difficulty,
since the latter
concern
the law alone ( thus, according to Goblot,
within the
the
bourgeois class, one can do anything provided
the class rule,
the system of arbitrary signs that
defines it as a caste, remains
unharmed) . All transgressions are possible, but
not an infrac-
tion- of the Rule.
Thus, in their common
challenge to the natural order,
per-
version and
seduction resemble each other. But . on numerous
occasions they are violently opposed, as
in the story of The
Collector, where a
perverse, possessive passion triumphs
over
seduction . Or
in the story of "The Dancer" related by
Leo
Scheer : A concentration
camp guard forces a young
Jewess to
dance for
him before her death. She does so, and as
her danc-
ing leaves
him spellbound, she is able to approach
him, steal
his weapon and k ill him. Of the two universes,
that ofthe SS,
exemplifying a
staggering, perverse power, a power offascina-
tion ( that vested in the
sovereignty of the person who
holds
a life in
his hands), and that ofthegirl, exemplifying
seduction
by
the dance, the latter triumphs. Seduction
invades the order
of fascination and turns
it upside down ( though most of
the
time it is
not even given the chance to enter)
. It; is clear here
that the two logics exclude each other,
and that each represents
a mortal danger for the other.
But isn't there a
continuous cycle of reversion ; between the
two? The
collector's passion ends up, after
all, exercising a k ind
of
seduction over the girl ( or is it
only fascination? But, once
again, where's the difference?) .
A certain vertigo' results from
SUPERFICIAL ABYSSES 12
7
her desperate attempt to circumscribe a fo reclo sed universe,
whereby, at the same time, she disclo ses a sink ho le o r vo id
that exercises, by its
anti-seductio n, a new fo rm o f attractio n .
Acertain kind o f seductio n is perverse : hysteria, since it uses
seductio n to defend itself fro m seductio n . But a certain per-
versio n is
seductive, since it uses the deto ur o f perversio n to
seduce .
With hysteria seductio n
beco mes o bscene. But in certain
fo rms o f po rno graphy, o bscenity again
beco mes seductive. Vio -
lence can
seduce, and even rape . The o dio us and the abject can
seduce . Where
do es the deto ur o f seductio n sto p? Where do es
the cycle o f reversio n end,
and sho uld it be sto pped?
Ho wever, a pro fo und difference remains
:
the
pervert is radi-
cally suspicio us o f seductio n and tries
to
co dify it .
He
tries
to
fix its
rules, fo rmalize them in a text, express them in a pact .
In so do ing, he breaks
a basic rule, that o f the secret . Instead
o f upho lding seductio n's
supple ceremo nial, the pervert wants
a fixed ceremo nial, a fixed
duel
.
By making the rule into so me-
thing sacred and o bscene, by designating it as an end, that is
to
say,
as
a
law, he traces an unco mpro mising defense : fo r it
is the theater o f the rule
that gains ascendancy, as in hysteria
the theater o f the bo dy. Mo re generally,
all the perverse fo rms
o f seductio n have the
fo llo wing in co mmo n : they betray its
secret and the fundamental
rule, which is that the rule remain
unspo ken .
In this sense, the seducer himself is perverse. Fo r he to o
deflects seductio n
fro m its rule o f secrecy, and do es so inten-
tio nally. He is to seductio n what the
cheater is to the game. If
the purpo se o f the game is
to
win, then
the cheater is the o nly
true player. If seductio n had an o bjective, then the
seducer
wo uld be its ideal
figure . But neither seductio n no r the game
can be thus characterized,
and there is a go o d chance that what
determines the cheater's actio ns, his
cynical stratagems to win
at all co sts, is his hatred o f the game, his rejectio n o f the seduc-
tio n pro per to the game
- just as there is a go o d chance that
the seducer's behavio ur is determined by his fear
o f
being
seduced, and
o f
having
to face the risk o f a challenge to his
o wn
truth. This is what leads him to his first sexual
co nquest,
and then to the co untless
co nquests where he can fetishize his
12 8 SEDUCTION
strategy.
The pervert always gets involved in a maniacal
universe of
mastery and the
law. He seeks mastery over the fetishized rule
and absolute
ritual circumscription . The latter is
no longer play-
ful. It no longer moves . It is dead, and
can no long put any-
thing into play except its
own death. Fetishism is the seduction
of
death, including the death of the
rule in perversion .
Perversion is a frozen challenge ; seduction,
a living challenge .
Seduction is
shifting and ephemeral ; perversion,
monotonous
and interminable . Perversion is
theatrical and complicit ; seduc-
tion, secret and
reversible .
Systems obsessed with their
systematicity are fascinating: they
tune in death as
an energy of fascination . Thus
the collector's
passion tries to circumscribe
and immobilize seduction
before
transforming it into a death energy . It is then
the flaw of such
systems that becomes
seductive. Terror is dissipated by
irony.
Or else
seduction lies in wait for systems
at their point of iner-
tia, that point at
which they stop, where there is no
longer any
beyond, nor any possible representation
- a point of no return
where the
trajectories slow down and
the object is absorbed
by its own force of resistance
and density. What happens
in
the environs of
this point of inertia? The object
is distorted like
the sun refracted by the different layers
of the horizon; crushed
by its own mass,
it no longer obeys its own laws .
We know
almost nothing about such
processes of inertia, except that
at
the edge of
this black hole the point of no
return becomes a
point of total reversibility, a catastrophic
point where death is
pulled
tight to be released in a new seduction
effect .
THEPOLITICAL DESTINY
OF
SEDUCTION
V
THEPASSION FORRULES
Noplayer must be greater than the
game i tself
Rollerball
The Di ary of the Seducer clai ms that i n seducti on the sub-
ject i s never the master of hi s master
plan, and even when the
latter i s deployed i n f ull consci ousness, i t sti ll submi ts to
the
rules of a game that goes beyond i t. Ari tual
dramaturgy be-
yond
the law, seducti on i s both game and f ate, andas such push-
es the protagoni sts towards thei r i nevi table end wi thout
the rule
bei ng broken - f or i t i s the rule that bi nds them. And the rule' s
basi c di ctum i s that the game conti nue whatever
the cost, be
i t death i tself
. There
i s,
then, a sort of passi on that bi nds the
players
to
the rule that ti es them together - wi thout whi ch the
game would not be possi ble.
Ordi nari ly we li ve wi thi n the realm of the Law, even when
f antasi zi ng i ts aboli ti on. Beyond the lawwe see
only i ts trans-
gressi on or
the li f ti ng of a prohi bi ti on. For the di scourse of law
and i nterdi cti on determi nes the i nverse
di scourse of transgres-
si on
and li berati on. However, i t i s not the absence of the law
that i s opposed to the law, but the
Rule
.
The Rule plays on an i mmanent sequence of arbi trary si gns,
whi le the Law i s based on a transcendent sequence of
neces-
sary si gns. The one concerns cycles, the recurrence of conven-
ti onal procedures,
whi le
the other
i s an i nstance based i n an
i rreversi ble conti nui ty. The one i nvolves obli gati ons, the other
constrai nts and prohi bi ti ons. Because the Lawestabli shes ali ne,
i t can andmustbe transgressed. By contrast,
i t makes
no
sense
13
2 SEDUCTION
to "transgress" a game's rules ; within a c y c le's rec urrenc e, there
is no line one c an jump ( instead , one simply leaves the game).
Bec ause the Law -
whether that of the signifier, c astration, or
a soc ial interd ic tion -
c laims to be the d isc ursive sign of a legal
instanc e and hid d en truth, it
results
in
repression and
prohibi-
tions, and thus the d ivision into
a manifest and a latent d isc ourse.
Given that the rule is c onventional and arbitrary , and has no
hid d en truth, it knows neither repression nor the d istinc tion
between the manifest and the latent . It d oes not c arry any mean-
ing, it d oes not lead any where ; by c ontrast, the Law has a d e-
terminate finality . The end less, reversible c y c le of the Rule is
opposed
to
the linear, finalized
. progression of the Law.
Signs d o not have the same status in the one as in the other.
The Law is part of the world of representation, and is there-
fore subjec t to interpretation or d ec ipherment . It involves
d ec rees or statements, and is not ind ifferent to the subjec t . It
is a tex t, and falls und er the influenc e of meaning and referen-
tiality. By c ontrast, the
Rule has no subjec t, and the form of
its utteranc e is of little c onsequenc e ; one d oes not d ec ipher
the rules, nor d erive pleasure from their c omprehension -only
their observanc e matters, and the resulting gid d iness . This also
d istinguishes the
passion
for the
game's rituals and intensity
from
the pleasure that attac hes
to obed ienc e to the
Law,
or its trans-
gression .
In ord er to und erstand the intensity of ritual forms, one must
rid oneself of the id ea that all happiness d erives from nature,
and all pleasure from the satisfac tion of a d esire. On the c on-
trary , games, the sphere
of
play , reveal a passion for rules, a gid -
d iness born of rules, and a forc e that c omes from c eremony ,
and not d esire.
Does the d elight one ex perienc es in a game c ome from a
d ream-like situation, where one moves free of reality , but whic h
one c an quit at any time? Not at all . Games, unlike d reams, are
subjec t to rules, and one just d oesn't leave a game . Games c re-
ate obligations like those found in c hallenges . To leave a game
is unsportsmanlike.
And
the fac t that one c annot refuse to play
THEPOLITICAL DESTINY
OF
SEDUCTION
13 3
a game from within -a fac t that explains its enc hantment and
differentiates it from "reality" -c reates a symbolic pac t whic h
c ompels one to observe the rules without reserve, and to pur-
sue the game to the end, as
one pursues a c hallenge to the end.
Theorder
instituted by the game, being c onventional, is in-
c ommensurable with the nec essary order of the real world: it
is neither ethic al nor psyc hologic al, and its ac c eptanc e (the ac -
c eptanc e of the rules) implies neither resignation nor c onstraint .
As suc h, there is no freedom in our moral and individual sense
of that term, in games . They are not to be equated
with liberty.
Games do not obey the dialec tic of free will, that hypothetic al
dialec tic of the sphere of the real and the law. To enter into
a
game is to enter a system of ritual obligations .
Its intensity der-
ives from its initiatory form -not from our liberty, as we would
lik e to believe, following an ideology that sees only a
single,
"natural" sourc e of happiness and
pleasure.
Thegame's sole
princ iple,
though
it
is
never posed as univer-
sal, is that by c hoosing the rule one is deliveredfrom the law.
Without a psyc hologic al or metaphysic al foundation,
the rule
has no grounding in belief. Oneneither believes
nor disbelieves
a rule -one observes it . Thediffuse
sphere of belief, the need
for c redibility that enc ompasses the real, is dissolved in the
game. Henc e their immorality : to proc eed without
believing in
it, to sanc tion a direc t fasc ination with c onventional
signs and
groundless
rules
.
Debts too are annuled. In games there is nothing to redeem,
no ac c ounts to settle with the past . For this reason, games ap-
pear unaware of the dialec tic of the possible and
impossible,
there being no ac c ounts to settle
with
the
future. There is noth-
ing "possible," sinc e everything is played, everything dec ided,
without hope and without alternatives,
ac c ording
to
a relent-
less, unmediated logic . That is why there is no laughter around
the pok er table, ,for its logic is c ool (but not c asual) ; and the
game being without hope, is never obsc ene and
never lends
itself to laughter
.
Games are serious,
more serious than life, as
seen in the paradoxic al fac t that in agame lives c an be at stak e.
Games,
therefore, are
no
more based
on
the pleasure princ i-
ple than the reality princ iple. _They suppose the
enc hantment
of the rule, and the sphere that the rule desc ribes .
And the lat-
13
4 SEDUCTION
t e r i s not a s phe r e of i llus i on or di ve r s i on, but i nvolve s anot he r
log i c , an ar t i fi c i al, i ni t i at or y log i c
whe r e i n
t he nat ur al de t e r -
mi nant s of li fe and de at h have be e n aboli s he d.
Thi s c ons t i t ut e s
t he s pe c i fi c i t y
of
g ame s and t he i r s t ake s . It make s no s e ns e t o
r e duc e t he m
t o
an e c onomi c
log i c
t hat would s pe ak
of
c ons -
c i ous i nve s t me nt , or t o a log i c of de s i r e t hat would s pe ak of
unc ons c i ous mot i ve s . Cons c i ous or unc ons c i ous - t hi s dou-
ble de t e r mi nat i on may be vali d for t he s phe r e of . me ani ng and
law,
but not
for
r ule s and g ame s .
The Law de s c r i be s a pot e nt i ally uni ve r s al s y s t e m of me an-
i ng and value . It ai ms at obje c t i ve r e c og ni t i on . On t he bas i s of
i t s unde r ly i ng t r ans c e nde nc e , t he Law c ons t i t ut e s i t s e lf i nt o an
i ns t anc e for t he t ot ali zat i on of t he r e al, wi t h all t he r e volut i ons
and t r ans g r e s s i ons c le ar i ng t he way t o t he law's uni ve r s ali za-
t i on . By c ont r as t , t he Rule i s i mmane nt t o a li mi t e d and r e s -
t r i c t e d s y s t e m,
whi c h
i t de s c r i be s
wi t hout t r ans c e ndi ng , and
wi t hi n
whi c h
i t i s i mmut able . The r ule doe s not as pi r e t o
uni ve r -
s ali t y and, s t r i c t ly s pe aki ng , i t lac ks all e xt e r i or i t y s i nc e i t doe s
not i ns t i t ut e an i nt e r nal s c i s s i on . It i s t he Law's t r ans c e nde nc e
t hat e s t abli s he s t he i r r e ve r s i bi li t y of me ani ng and value .
And
i t i s t he r ule 's i mmane nc e , i t s ar bi t r ar y , c i r c ums c r i pt i ve c har ac -
t e r , t hat le ads , i n i t s own s phe r e , t o t he r e ve r s i bi li t y of me ani ng
and t he r e ve r s i on of t he Law.
The i ns c r i pt i on of r ule s i n a s phe r e wi t hout a be y ond ( i t 's
no
long e r
a uni ve r s e , s i nc e
i t
no
long e r as pi r e s
t o
uni ve r s ali t y )
i s as di ffi c ult
t o
unde r s t and as t he i de a
of
a fi ni t e uni ve r s e . A
boundar y wi t hout s ome t hi ng be y ond i t i s uni mag i nable . For
us t he fi ni t e i s alway s s e t ag ai ns t t he i nfi ni t e ; but t he s phe r e
of
g ame s i s ne i t he r fi ni t e nor i nfi ni t e - t r ans fi ni t e pe r haps . It
has i t s own fi ni t e c ont our s , wi t h whi c h i t r e s i s t s t he i nfi ni t y
of analy t i c s pac e. To r e i nve nt a r ule i s t o r e s i s t
t he li ne ar i nfi ni -
t ude of analy t i c s pac e i n or de r t o r e c ove r a r e ve r s i ble s pac e
.
For a r ule has i t s own r e volut i on, i n t he li t e r al s e ns e of t he wor d:
t he c onve c t i on t owar ds a c e nt r al poi nt and t he c y c le 's r e ve r -
s i on ( t hi s i s how r i t uals func t i on. wi t hi n a c y c li c al wor ld),
i n-
de pe nde nt of e ve r y log i c of c aus e and
e ffe c t , or i g i n and e nd .
THEPOLITICALDESTINYOFSEDUCTION 13 5
This
marks the end
of
the centrifugal dimension: the sud-
den, intensive gravitation
of
space andabolition of time, which
implodes in a flash to become so dense that it escapes the tradi-
tional laws of physics - its entire course
spiraling inwards
towards
the
center
where
the density is greatest .
This
is
the
game's fascination, the crystalline passion that erases memory
traces and forfeits meaning . All passion comes close, in its form,
to the latter, but the passion for gaming is the purest .
The best analogy would be with primitive cultures, which
have been described as closed in on themselves, incapable of
conceiving of the rest of the world. But in our society the rest
of the world ex ists only for us . Their closure, far from being
restrictive, derives from a different logic which, because we are
trapped
within the imaginary
of
the universal, can no longer
conceive of ex cept pejoratively, as limited.
The symbolic sphere of these cultures knows no remains.
In games too, unlike the real, there is nothing left over. Because
they have neither
history, memory nor internal accumulation
(the stakes are constantly being consumed and reversed, it be-
ing an unspoken rule that, while the game is in progress, one
cannot withdraw anything in the form of a gain or "surplus
value"), they leave no residue
within. Nor is there anything that
remains outside the game.
The "remainder"
supposes
an un-
solved equation, an unrealized destiny, something subtracted
or repressed. But a game's equation is always perfectly
balanced, and its destiny always fulfilled, without leaving any
traces (something that distinguishes it from the unconscious) .
The theory of the unconscious supposes that
certain affects,
scenes or
signifiers
can no
longer
be put
into play, that they
are foreclosed, outside-the-game. The game, on the other hand,
is basedon the hypothesis that everything can be put into play.
Otherwise it would have
to be admitted
that one has always
already lost, that one is playing in order to always lose . In the
game, however, no objects are wasted. There is nothing irredu-
cible to the game
which
precedes the game - and in
particular,
no previous debts. If within games, something is ex orcised, it
is not some debt contracted vis-a-vis the law. It is the Law it-
self that is ex orcised as an unforgivable crime, as discrimina-
tory, an irreconcilable transcendence within the real . And its
13 6
SEDUCTION
transgression only
adds
a new crime
to
that
of the
law - and
new debts and griefs .
The Lawestablishes equality as a principle : in principle every-
one is equal before the Law. By contrast, there is no equality
before the rule ; for the latter has no jurisdiction over princi-
ples . Moreover, in order for everyone to be equal they must
be separated. The
players,
however,
are
not separate
or
individu-
alized : they are instituted in a
dual
and agonistic relation . They
are not even solidary - solidarity supposing a formal concep-
tion
of
the
social, the
moral
ideal of a group in competition
.
The players are tied
to
each other ; their parity entails an obli-
gation that does not require solidarity, at least not as something
that needs to be conceptualized or interiorized .
The rule has no need of a formal structure or superstructure
- whether moral or psychological - to function . Precisely be-
cause rules are arbitrary and ungrounded, because they have
no referents, they do not require: a consensus, nor any collec-
tive will or truth . They ex ist, that' s all. And they ex ist only when
shared, while the Law floats above scattered individuals .
Their
logic is clearly illustrated by what Goblot claims, in
La Barriere
et le
Niveau,
is
the
cultural rule of castes
(and
of
the bourgeois class as well) :
1 . Total parity amongst the players within the space
created by the Rule : this is the "level . "
2 . Beyond the Rule, the foreclosing
of
the rest of the
world
:
this
is the "barrier
. "
Within its own domain,
ex traterritoriality,
in
the
obligations
and privileges, absolute reciprocity: games restore this logic in
its pure state . The agonistic relation between the players can
never jeopardize their reciprocal,, privileged status . The game
might come to naught and its stakes lost - still the reciprocal
enchantment, and the arbitrariness of the Rule at its source, must
be preserved.
This is why duel relations can ex clude all effort,
merit
or
per-
sonal qualities (above
all, in
the pure form of games of chance) .
Personal traits are admitted only as a kind of favour or entice-
ment, and have no psychological equivalents . This is howgames
go - as demanded by the divine transparency of the Rule .
In a
finite
space, one is
delivered from the universal - with
THEPOLITICAL DESTINYOFSEDUCTION
13
7
an immediate, duel p ar ity , one is deliver ed fr om equality - with
obligations one is deliver ed fr om fr eedom - in the ar bitr ar i-
nes s of the Rule and its cer emonial, one is deliver ed
fr om the
law. Thus the enchantment of games .
In
a s ens e, we ar e mor e equal
within cer emonials than be-
for e the Law (p er hap s this
accounts
for
the
ins is tence
on p o-
litenes s , on cer emonial confor mity , p ar ticular ly amongs t the les s
cultivated clas s es ; it being eas ier to s har e conventional s igns
than s igns laden with meaning or s igns of "intelligence") . We
als o have mor e fr eedom in games than any wher e els e, for we
do not have to inter nalize the r ules ; we owe the r ules only a
token fidelity , and do not feel we have to tr ans gr es s them, as
is the cas e with the law. With the r ule we ar e fr ee of the Law
- and
of
all the
cons tr aints of choice, fr eedom, r es p ons ibility
and meaning! The
ter r or is m of meaning can only be dis s ip at-
ed by ar bitr ar y s igns .
However , make no mis take about it : conventional or r itual
s igns
ar e binding . One is not fr ee to s ignify in is olation while
s till maintaining a
coher ent r elation with r eality or tr uth . The
fr eedom demanded by moder n s igns , like moder n individuals ,
to ar ticulate thems elves accor ding to their affects or des ir e (for
meaning) does not exis t for conventional s igns
.
The
latter can-
not s et off aimles s ly , with their own r efer ent or s cr ap of mean-
ing as ballas t . Each s ign is tied to other s , not within the abs tr act
s tr uctur e of language, but within the
s ens eles s
unfolding
of a
cer emonial ; they echo each other and r edup licate thems elves
in other , equally ar bitr ar y s igns .
The
r itual
s ign
is not a r ep r es entative s ign. It is not, ther e-
for e, s omething wor th under s tanding . Ins tead, it deliver s us fr om
meaning. This is why we ar e s o committed
to
s uch s igns
.
The
gaming debt is a debt of honour ; ever y thing concer ning the
game is s acr ed becaus e conventional .
In ALover 's
Dis cour s e Roland Bar thes j us tifies his choice of
13 8 SEDUCTION
an alphabetical order in the following terms
: "to discourage the
temptation of meaning, it was necessary
to choose, an absolutely
insignificant order," that is to say, neither an intended
order,
nor
one of pure chance, but a perfectly conventional order. For
"we must not,"
he writes, citing a mathematician, "underesti-
mate the power
of chance to engender monsters," that is, logi-
cal sequences - meaning.
In other words, total
liberty, or total indeterminacy are not
opposed to meaning. One can
produce
meaning
simply by play-
ing with chance or disorder. New diagonals
of
meaning, new
sequences can be engendered from the untamed flood tides
of desire - as in certain modern philosophies, the molecular
or
intensive
philosophies, which claim to undermine meaning
by
diffraction,
hook-ups and the Brownian movements of desire.
As
with
chance, we must not underestimate the power of desire
to
engender ( logical)
monsters .
One does not
escape
meaning
by dissociation, disconnec-
tion or deterritorialization . One escapes meaning by replacing
it with a
more
radical simulacrum,
a
still
more
conventional
order - like
the alphabetical order for Barthes, or the rules of
a game, or the innumerable rituals
of everyday
life which
frus-
trate both the ( political, historical or social) order of meaning
and the disorder ( chance) which one would impose on them.
Indeterminacy,
dissociation or proliferation in the form of
a star or rhizome only generalize meaning's
sphere of
influence
to the entire sphere of non-sense. That is, they merely general-
ize meaning's pure form, an abstract finality with neither a de-
terminate end nor contents . Only rituals abolish meaning.
This is why there are no "rituals of transgression . " The very
expression makes no sense, especially when applied to the fes-
tival . The latter has proved very problematic foi our revolu-
tionaries : is the festival a transgression or regeneration of the
Law? An absurd question, for rituals, including the ritual litur-
gy of
the festival, belong to neither the
domain of
the Law, nor
its transgression, but to that of the Rule .
The same applies to magic. We are constantly interpreting
THEPOLITICALDESTINYOFSEDUCTION 13 9
what
f al l s
under
the rul e in the terms
of
the l aw. Thus , magic
is s een as an
attempt
to outwit the l aws of
production and hard
work
. Primitives have the s ame " util itarian" ends as us , but in
order to real iz e them, they woul d rather avoid rational exer-
tion. Magic, however, is s omething very dif f erent : it is a ritual
f or the maintenance of the worl d as a pl ay of anal ogical rel a-
tions , a cycl ical progres s ion where everything is l inked together
by
their s igns . An immens e game, rul e governs magic, and the
bas ic probl em is to ens ure, by means of ritual , that everything
continues to pl ay thus , by anal ogical contiguity and creeping
s eduction. It has nothing to do with l inear rel ations of caus e
and ef f ect . The l atter - our way of unders tanding the worl d
- is objective but uns ettl ed. For it has broken the rul e.
Magic does not s eek to f ool
the
l aw. It does n't cheat -
and
to judge it as s uch is abs urd. One might jus t as wel l dis pute
the arbitrarines s of a game's rul es in terms of the " objective"
givens of nature.
The s ame s impl is tic and objectivis tic mis unders tanding oc-
curs
with gambl ing.
Here
the objective woul d be economic:
to become rich without exerting ones el f . The s ame attempt to
s kip s teps as in magic. The s ame trans gres s ion of the
principl e
of
equival ence and hard work which rul es the " real " worl d.
The cl aim, then, is that gambl ing's truth
is
to be f ound in the
tricks it pl ays on val ue.
But one is f orgetting here the game's power of s eduction . Not
jus t the powerone experiences when momentaril y carried away,
but the power
to
trans mute
val ues
that
comes
with the rul e.
In gambl ing money is s educed, def l ected f rom its truth. Hav-
ing been cut of f f rom the l aw of equival ences ( it " burns " ) and
the l aw of
repres entation,
money
is
no
l onger a s ign
or
repres en-
tation once trans f ormed into a s take. And a s take is not s ome-
thing one inves ts . As an inves tment money takes the f orm of
capital , butas a s take it appears in the f orm of a chal l enge. Pl ac-
ing abet has as l ittl e to do with pl acing an inves tment, as l ibidi-
nal inves tment with the s takes of s eduction.
Inves tments and counter-inves tments - they bel ong
to
the
ps ychic economy of drives and s ex . Games , s takes and
chal l enges are the f igures
of
pas s ion and s eduction. More gener-
al l y, al l the s tuf f of money, l anguage, s ex and af f ect undergo
14
0 SEDUCTION
a complete change of meaning depending on whether they are
mobilized as an inves tment or trans pos ed into a s take. The two
moments are irreducible.
If games had a finality, the only true player would be the
cheater. Now, if a certain amount of pres tige can be acquired
by trans gres s ing the law, there is no pres tige in cheating or trans -
gres s ing a rule. In truth, the cheater cannot trans gres s
the rules
s ince the game, not being a s ys tem of interdictions , does
not
have lines one can cros s . One does
not "trangres s " a rule, one
fails
to
obs erve it . And non- obs ervance does not lead to a s tate
of
trans gres s ion; it brings one back under the juris diction of
the law.
This is the cas e with the cheater, who denies or, even better,
profanes the game's ceremonial conventions
for economic rea-
s ons ( or ps ychological reas ons , if he cheats s imply for the pleas -
ure of winning), and thereby res tores the laws of the real world.
By introducing factors of an individual nature, he des troys the
game's "duel" enchantment . If cheating was once punis hed by
death and is s till condemned
s trongly,
it is becaus e,
as acrime,
it res embles inces t : cultural rules being broken to the s ole profit
of
the "laws
of
nature. "
For the cheater, there is no longer anything at s take. He con-
fus es the s takes with s urplus - value. But the s takes are what ena-
bles one to play, and to turn them into the game's purpos e is
to abus e one's pos ition of trus t.
In a s imilar manner, the rules
es tablis h the very pos s ibility of playing, the s pace within which
the s ides confront each other. To treat the rules as ends ( or as
laws or truths ) is to des troy both the game and its s takes . The
rules have no autonomy, that quality which, according to Marx,
characterizes commodities , both individually and in general,
and is
the
s acros anct
value
of
the economic domain. The cheater
too is autonomous : he es tablis hes a law, his own law, agains t
the arbitrary rituals of the rule - this is what dis qualifies
him
.
And he is free
- this explains his downfall . Moreover, he is rather
dreary, becaus e he no longer expos es hims elf to the s eduction
of games , becaus e he refus es the vertigo of s eduction. By way
IFF
DCLIIICAL DFSIIKYCFSFDCCIICK 1~1
cL .vcc.-.., cn- :.
cc..Li- .i c-..cniL icvini:- .
cnLv in iL. n .-iLv
.- c.-i. n c.c-. c -.cic- .-c.ccn
.- c.-i. . -ci..- .- . iL.ic
cL . -n: .-c.c-c
I.-
c.iLL-n:- cL i :i- . v-.v cLL-.-n,
inc :i-. i.- iL
.iv. i c.iLL-n:-
inc nc .. ..-n cLiv-c
i.c.nc i i. L-
Ccn.c-. .- A-.cin
..c .ic .- LcLLc.n: cLi..L-c
ic
v-..--n
c.n-c n .- cic-. "S-nc
- i ccLLi." Anc .-n
.-c-v-c -n.
cL .c..inc. cL ccLLi.. F- cc nc c.c.- inv
.n: .- .i. nc,
.-.-Lc.-, ..ncLn: invcn- Kc. cc .-
.iv "I n--c i ccLLi."
nc. ccv .c.Lc .iv- -v-. :v-n .
i ccLLi.
.nc-. ..c. c.c..inc-. Sc-..-.-
.- .ic L- LLci
.- cLL c.inc-
cL i .ic.Lc.. -xc.in:- Sc-.n:
c.- .in
in -o.viL-nc- A
. L.LL F- .i. cLL-.n: .- c.. Lc
i c.iLL-n:-
..i .c. cL ... L-
.in.iccn .-.- .-v n-:cin: ..-n,
n.-ic cL . .vn: i ccLLi. . .c..
cL c- c.-i, .-v .-n n
.-.
cn-v I.-v n-v-. .-iLLv . -L-v-c .-v
.c.Lc .-c-v-
-n .c..inc
ccLLi.. n .-..n In ..., .-v
cc .c .-
c.iLL-n:- n .-. c.n .iv,
inc .i. i. viLc i. inv c.-.,
Lc. .-v .-.- . -n:
cLL-.-c i .... cn- ..-.- cn- .n.
cn
. c. cc.n.
Cn- n-v-. nc.., :.
.c. -n .c..inc ccL
Li.. n .- iL , n ..c.
ci.-, cn- .i. .-c-v-c
i .:n
cL .- cc. Livc.. ..c. cc.
.c.-
..c
.ic c.n-c
.- ic
IL cc-.n .c.,
. . -ci..- .- c. .c..- n.inc-
.i :iv- - .- .:n
cc nc i- .c v c.iLL-n:-
Sc .c. .- . --. D.vc.cLc:ciLLv I
.iv- . -i
-n .-
cc.
Acc.. L- c.iLL-n:- .-
ccn in c.iLL-n:-. .- ..c-. inc
.- Li-. c.iLL-n:-. Li- IL .- .
cv-...-L-c . v Li-, .- .
n .- cL-i.
Cn- cin iL.iv. cc.n cn c.Lci. Lv c Lcc Lc.
.iv. cL . -n: -xc.c.-c, . . .-iLLv
.n i o.-.cn cL :.L
Ic .-nc i ccLLi. n
.-.ccn.- c .- i. ...c c.iLL-n:-
cL .- ic
v-..--n, . .- .ic.LciL
.-.ccn.- ci. -xc-LL-nc- I cin . -
14
2 SEDUCTION
summed up as: "There
must besomething behind this.
I will
summon theGodsto
respondor else to disappear" - and
reduc-
ing the Gods to nothing is
always a source of pleasure
.
Stakes andchallenges,
summoning andbluffing - thereis no
question of belief in all this.
Moreover, one never "believes"
in anything. It is never a
question of believing or
not believ-
ing, no morethan
for Santa Claus. Belief is an absurd
concept,
of thesame
type as motivation, need, instinct,
i . e, drive, desire,
and, Godknowswhat else - facile tautologies
that hide from
us
thefact that our actions are
never groundedpsychological-
ly in belief, but in stakes
and challenges. It is never a
matter
of carefully reasoned
speculation on existence (on the
existence
of God, or of
someonewith a dollar) , but of
continual provo-
cation, of
a game. Onedoes not
believe in God, j ust as one
does
not "believe" in chance --
except in the humdrum
dis-
courses of religion or
psychology. Onechallenges
them, they
challenge you,
one plays with them, and they play
with you:
for this one does not have to
believe in them.
Thus faith in the
religious sphere is similar to
seduction in
thegameof love.
Belief is turned to the existence of
God- and
existence has
only an impoverished, residual
status, being what
is left
when all else hasbeen removed-
whilefaith is a challenge
to God'sexistence, a
challenge to Godto exist, and in
return,
to die. Oneseduces Godwith
faith, andHecannot but respond,
for seduction,
like the challenge, is a reversible
form. AndHe
responds
a hundredfoldby His grace to
thechallenge of faith.
As
with all ritual exchanges, the
wholeforms a system of
obli-
gations, with God
being obliged andeven compelled
to respond
- even as He
is never compelled to exist.
Belief is satsifiedwith
asking
Himto exist and underwrite
the world's existence -
it
is the disenchanted,
contractual form. But
faith turns Godinto
a stake: God
challenges man to exist (and he
can respond to
this challenge with his death) ,
and man challenges God
to
respond to
his sacrifice, that is, to disappear in
return .
One
always aspires to something more
than mere existence,
andsomething morethan an
equivalent value -and
this some-
THEPOLITICAL DESTINY
OF
SEDUCTION 14
3
thing
more,
the challenge's immoderation compared to the con-
tract,
its intemperance
compared to
the
equivalence
of cause
and effect, is clearly the result of seduction - that of games and
magic . If we have experienced this in amorous seduction,
why
not in our relations with the world? Symbolic efficacy is not
an empty concept . It reflects the existence of another form of
the
circulation
of goods
and
signs, a
form far more effective
and powerful than economic circulation . What is fascinating
about a miraculous win at the gaming tables is not the money :
it is the resumption of ties with these other, symbolic circuits
of unmediated and immoderate bidding, which concern the
seduction of the order of things .
In the last
analysis, there is nothing to prevent
things from
being seduced lik e beings - one simply has to find the game's
rules .
The entire problem of chance appears here. Magic, as a wager,
is
similar
to our games of chance. What is at stak e is the parti-
cle of value thrown in the face of chance considered as a tran-
scendent instance, not in order to win its favours, but to dismiss
its transcendence, its abstraction, and turn it into a partner, an
adversary. The stak e is a
summons, the game a duel
:
chance
is summoned to respond, obliged by the player's wager to
declare itself either favourable
or
hostile. Chance is never neu-
tral, the game tranforms it into a player and agonistic figure .
Which is another way of saying that the basic assumption
behind the game is that chance does not exist .
Chance in its modern, rational sense, chance as an aleatory
mechanism, pure probability subjected to the laws of proba-
bility (and not to the rules of a game) - a sort of Great Neutral
Aleatorium (G. N. A. ), the epitome of a fluctuating universe domi-
nated by statistical abstractions, a secularized, disenchanted and
unbound divinity. This k ind of chance does not exist in games ;
they exist
to
ward it off.
Games of chance deny that the world
is arranged contingently ; on the contrary they seek to override
any
such
neutral
order and recreate a ritual order of obligations
which undermines the free world of equivalences . In this man-
ner games are radically opposed to the economy and Law. They
question the reality of chance as an objective lawand replace
it with an inter-connected, propitious, duel, agonistic and non-
144 SEDUCTION
contingent universe - a charmed universe (charmed, in the
strong sense of the term), a universe of seduction .
Thus the superstitious manipulations surrounding games,
which many (Caillois)
view
only in
terms of debasement
. The
resort to magical practices, from playing one's birth date to look-
ing for recurrent series (the eleven came up eleven times run-
ning in Monte Carlo), from the most subtle winning formulas
to the rabbit's foot in one's coat pocket, they all feed on the
idea that chance does not ex ist, that the world is built of net-
works of symbolic relations -not contingent connections, but
webs
of
obligation, webs
of
seduction . One
has
only to play
one's hand right. . .
The bettor defends himself at all costs from the' idea of a neu-
tral universe, of which objective chance is a part . The bettor
claims that anything can be seduced -numbers, letters, or the
laws that govern their distribution
.
He
would
seduce
the Law
itself. The least sign, the least gesture has a meaning, which
is not to say that it is part of some rational progression, but
that every sign is vulnerable to, and can be seduced by other
signs . The world is held together by unbreakable chains, but
they are not those of the Law.
Here lies the "immorality" of games, often attributed to the
fact that they encourage one to want to win too much too quick-
ly. But this is to give them too much credit . Games are more
immoral than that . They are immoral because they substitute
an
order of seduction for an order
of
production .
If a game is a venture for the seduction of chance that attaches
itself
to
combinations
of
signs (but not those of,cause and ef-
fect, nor those of contingent series) and if games tend to
eliminate the objective neutrality of chance and its statistical
"liberty" by harnessing them to the form of
the duel, the
challenge, and orderly bidding -- then it is absurd to imagine,
as does Gilles Deleuze in Logique du Sens, an "ideal game" that
would consist of a fury of
contingencies and, thus,
of
a radi-
cally increased indeterminacy which, in turn, would give rise
to the simultaneous play of every series and, therefore, to the
THEPOLITICAL DESTINYOFSEDUCTION 14 5
radical expression
of
becoming and desire.
The probability that two sequences will never -or hardly
ever -cross eliminates the game's very possibility ( ifsequences
never cross one cannot even speakofchance). But so does the
likelihood that an indefinite
number of sequences
will cross
eachother at any given moment. For games are only conceived
fromthejunction ofa fewsequences within a time-space frame
limited by rules. Indeed, the latter is a conditionfor the produc-
tion ofchance; the rules do not restrict the freedomof a "to-
tal" chance, but constitute the very mode
of
the game's
appearance.
It is not the case that the "more"
chance
there is, the more
intense the -game. This is to conceptualize both games and
chance in terms of a sort of "freedom" ofcombination, an im-
manent drifting, a
constant dissociation oforders
and
sequences,
an unbridled improvisation ofdesire -a kind of daimon who
blows in all directions, breathinga little uncertainty, an addi-
tional incidence into the world's orderly economy.
Nowall this is absurd. Becomingis not a matter of more or
less. There is no dose or overdose. Either the world is engaged
in a cycle of becoming, and is so engaged at all times, or it is
not. At any rate, it makes no sense to "take the side" ofbecom-
ing, assumingit exists -no more than that ofchance, or desire.
For one hasno choice: "To take the side ofthe primaryprocess
is still a consequence of secondary processes" ( Lyotard).
Thevery idea that games can be intensified
by
the accelera-
tion ofchance ( as thoughonewere speakingof the acidic con-
tent ofa chemical solution), the idea that becomingcan thereby
be extended exponentially, turns chance into an energizingfunc-
tion, and stems
directly
from a confusion withthe notion of
desire. But this is not chance. Perhaps one should even admit,
as the bettor secretly postulates, that chance does not exist.
Quite a number ofcultures have neither the word
nor the
con-
cept, for they do not view anything in terms of contingency,
nor even in terms ofprobability. Only our culture has invent-
ed the possibility ofa statistical response, an inorganic, objec-
tive and fluctuating response, the dead response of the
phenomena's objective indeterminacy andinstability
.
When
one
thinks about it, the assumption of a contingent universe,
146 SEDUCTION
stripped of a l l obl iga tions a nd purged of every symbol ic or for-
ma l . rul e, the idea
tha t
the
worl d of things is subjected to a
mol ecul a r a nd objective disorder - the sa me disorder tha t is
idea l ized a nd gl orified in the mol ecul a r vision of desire - this
a ssumption is insa ne . Sca rcel y l ess demented tha n the a ssump-
tion of a n objective order, of a n unbroken cha in of ca use a nd
effect, which bel ongs to the gl ory da ys of cl a ssica l rea son, a nd
from which, furthermore, the a ssumption of disorder fol l ows
in a ccord with the l ogic of residues .
The idea of cha nce first emerged a s the residue of a l ogica l
order of determina tion . But even hyposta sized a s a revol ution-
a ry va ria bl e, it stil l rema ins the mirror ima ge of; the principl e
of ca usa l ity. Its genera l iza tion, its unconditiona l "l ibera tion, "
a s in Del euze's "idea l ga me, " is pa rt of the pol itica l a nd mysti-
ca l economy of residues a t work everywhere toda y, with its
structura l inversion of wea k into strong terms . Cha nce, once
perceived a s obscene a nd insignifica nt, is to be'revived in its
insignifica nce a nd so become the motto of a noma dic econo-
my of desire.
Ga mes a re not to be confused with "becoming, " they a re
not
noma dic,
a nd
do not bel ong to the rea l m of desire .
They a re
cha ra cterized, even when ga mes
of
cha nce,
by
their ca pa city
to reproduce a given a rbitra ry constel l a tion in the sa me terms
a n
indefinite number of times . Their
true
form is cycl ica l or
recurrent . And a s such they, a nd they a l one, put a definite stop
to ca usa l ity a nd its principl e - not by the ma ssive introduction
of ra ndom series (which resul ts onl y in the dispersa l of ca usa l -
ity, its reduction
to
sca ttered fra gments, a nd not its overcom-
ing) - but by the potentia l return (the eterna l return if one wil l )
to a n orderl y, conventiona l situa tion .
Neither the
tempora l ity
of desire a nd
its
"freedom, "
nor tha t
of
some na tura l devel opment (a s with the pl a y of chil dren, or
the pl a y of the worl d described by Hera cl itus), but tha t of the
eterna l return of a ritua l form - a nd wil l ed a s such
. Thus ea ch
of the ga me's sequences del ivers us from the l inea rity of l ife
a nd dea th.
THEPOLITICAL DESTINYOFSEDUCTION
14
7
There are two kinds of
eternal return . The statistic al kind -
neutral, objec tive and
insipid
-
where, given that the c ombi-
nations,
however numerous, in a finite system c annot be infinite,
probability demands that the same arrangement eventually
rec ur, ac c ording to an immense c yc le. A thin metaphysic s: it
is a
natural eternal return, in ac c ord with a natural, statistic al
c ausality. The other vision is tragic and ritual : it is the willed
rec urrenc e, as in games,
of
an arbitrary and non-c ausal c onfig-
uration of signs, where eac h sign seeks out the next relentless-
ly, as in the c ourse of a c eremonial . It is the eternal return
demanded by rules - as in a mandatory suc c ession of throws
and wagers . And it makes no differenc e whether they be the
rules
of
the game
of
the universe itself: there is no metaphys-
ic s looming on the horizon of the game's indefinitely reversi-
ble c yc le - and c ertainly not the metaphysic s of desire, whic h
is still dependent on the world's natural order, or natural
disorder.
Desire may
well
be
the
Law of
the universe,
but
the eternal
return is its rule . Luc kily for us - otherwise, where would be
the pleasure in playing?
The c onsummate vertigo induc ed
by
a game: when the throw
of the dic e ends up "eliminating c hanc e," when, for example,
the same number appears against all odds several times in a row.
A game's ultimate fantasy, the ec stasy of c hec king c hanc e -
when, in
the grip
of
a
c hallenge, the same
throw
is repeated,
the prisoner of a rec urring series, and as a result the law and
c hanc e are abolished . One plays in antic ipation of this sym-
bolic transc ursion, that is to say, in antic ipation of an eventthat
will put an end to a random proc ess without,
however, fall-
ing prey to an objec tive law . By itself
eac h
throw produc es
only a moderate giddiness, but when fate raises the bid - a sign
that
it
is
truly
c aught
up in the
game -
when
fate
itself seems
to throw a c hallenge to the natural order of things and enters
into a frenzy
or
ritual vertigo, then the
passions are unleashed
and the spirits seized by a truly deadly fasc ination
.
There is nothing imaginary
about
this,
but an
imperious
148 SEDUCTION
necessity to put a sto p to the
natural play o f differences as
well
as
the histo rical develo pment o f
the law. There is no greater
mo ment . The o nly way to
respo nd to the natural
advances o f
desire is in terms o f
the ritual o ne-upmanship o f
seductio n and
games; and the
o nly way to respo nd to the co ntractual
pro po sals
o f the law is
in terms o f the o ne-upmanship and
fo rmal vertigo
o f
rules . A crystalline passio n
witho ut equal .
Games do no t belo ng
to the realm o f fantasy,
and their recur-
rence is no t the
repetitio n o f a phantasy. The
latter pro ceeds
fro m
an-"o ther" scene, and is a figure o f
death . The game's recur-
rence
pro ceeds fro m a rule, and is
a figure o f seductio n and
pleasure
. Every repetitive figure o f
meaning, whether
affect o r
representatio n, is a figure o f
death . Pleasure is released
o nly
by a
meaningless recurrence, o ne that
pro ceeds fro m
neither
aco nscio us
o rder no r an unco nscio us
diso rder, but results
fro m
the reversio n
and reiteratio n o f a pure
fo rm that challenges
and
o utdo es the law o f
co ntents and their accumulatio n
.
The game's recurrence
pro ceeds directly fro m fate,
and ex-
ists as fate . No t as
a death drive o r tendential
lo wering o f the
rate o f
difference, resulting in the
entro pic twilights o f
systems
o f
meaning, but as a fo rm o f
ritual incantatio n - a
fo rm o f
ceremo nial where the
signs, because they are so
vio lently at-
tracted to each o ther,
no lo nger leave any ro o m
fo r meaning,
and can o nly duplicate
themselves . Here to o o ne
finds the ver-
tigo o f
seductio n, the vertigo that co mes o f
being abso rbed in
a
recurrent fate . All so cieties
o ther than o ur o wn are
familiar
with this theater o f ritual,
which is also a theater o f
cruelty.
Games redisco ver
so mething o f this cruelty.
Co mpared with
games,
everything real is sentimental
. The truth, , and
the Law
itself
are sentimental relative to
the pure fo rms o f
repetitio n .
Just
as it is no t liberty that
is o ppo sed to the law,
but the rule,
similarly it is no t
indeterminacy that is
o ppo sed ; to causality,
but
o bligatio n . The latter is
neither a linear chain, no r an
un-
chaining (which is
merely the ro rnanticism o f a
deranged causal-
ity) ; it
fo rms a reversible chain
that, mo ving fro m sign to
sign,
inexo rably co mpletes its cycle,
turning its o rigin into
an ellipse
THEPOLITICAL
DESTINYOFSEDUCTION 14 9
and economizing on it s end, l ik e t he
s hel l s and bracel et s in Pol y-
nes ian exchange rel at ions hips
.
The
cycl e of obl igat ions is not
a code. We have confus ed obl igat ion in t he s t rong
s ens e, in it s
t imel es s , rit ual
s ens e, wit h l aws and codes , and t heir common-
pl ace cons t raint s ,
which rul e over us under t he oppos it e s ign,
t hat of l ibert y.
In Del euze's pure, nomadic chance, in his
"ideal game," t here
is onl y dis junct ion and
dis pers ed caus al it y. But onl y a concep-
t ual error al l ows one
t o dis s ociat e t he game from it s rul es in
order t o radical ize it s ut opian form. And t he s ame int emper-
ance,
or t he s ame facil it y, al l ows one t o dis s ociat e
chance from
what defines it -
an object ive cal cul us of s eries and probabil i-
t ies - in order
t o
t urn
it int o t he t heme s ong for an ideal in-
det erminacy, an ideal des ire
compos ed of t he endl es s
occurrence of count l es s s eries . But why
more s eries ?
Why
not
apure Brownian
movement ? But t hen t he l at t er, t hough it s eems
t o have become t he
phys ical model for radical des ire, has it s
l aws , and is not a game.
To general ize chance, in t he form of an "ideal
game," wit hout
s imul t aneous l y general izing t he
game's rul es , is ak in t o t he fan-
t as y
of radical izing des ire by ridding it of every l aw
and every
l ack . The object ive
ideal is m of t he "ideal game," and t he s ub-
ject ive ideal is m
of des ire .
Agame forms a s ys t em
wit h neit her cont radict ion nor int er-
nal negat ivit y. That is why one
cannot l augh at it . And if it can-
not be parodied, it is becaus e it s ent ire organizat ion
is parodic.
The rul e
funct ions as t he parodic s imul acrum
of
t he l aw
. Neit her
an invers ion nor s ubverion
of t he l aw, but it s revers ion in s imu-
l at ion . The
pl eas ure of t he game is t wofol d: t he
inval idat ion
of t ime and
s pace wit hin t he enchant ed s phere of an indes t ruct -
ibl e form of reciprocit y - pure s educt ion -
and t he parodying
of real it y, t he formal out bidding of t he l aw's
cons t raint s .
Can one produce a finer
parody of t he et hics of val ue t han
by s ubmit t ing ones el f, wit h al l t he int rans igence
of virt ue, t o
t he out comes of chance or t he
abs urdit y of a rul e? Can t here
be a finer parody of t he val ues of work ,
economy, product ion
15 0 SEDUCTION
and calculation than
the challenge and the wager, or
the fan-
tas tic non-equivalence
between what is at s take and
what might
be won(or los t - both
being equally immoral)? Or' a
finer parody
of
every idea of contract and exchange than this
magical com-
plicity, this "duel" obligation relative to the
rules , this agonis -
tic
attempt to s educe one' s opponent,
and to s educe chance
its elf? What better denial of the values
of will, res pons ibility,
equality and j us tice than this
exaltation of (good and bad)
luck,
this
exultation in playing with fate as
an equal? Can there be
a more beautiful parody of
our ideologies of liberty
than this
pas s ion for rules ?
Is there a
better parody of "s ociality" its elf
than that found
in Borges ' fable, "The Lottery
in Babylon," with its ines capa-
ble and fateful
logic andits s imulation of the s ocial
by the game?
"I
come
from a dizzy land where the lottery
is the bas is of
reality. " Thus begins a s tory about
a s ociety where the lottery
has s wallowed up all the
other ins titutions . In the
beginning
it was only a game of plebeian
character, and the mos t one
could
do was win. But
"the-lotteries " were boring, s ince
"they were
not directed
at all of man' s faculties , but
only at hope. " One
then "tried
a reform : the interpolation of a
few unfavourable
tickets in the lis t of favourable
numbers " - with the ris k of pay-
ing acons iderable
fine . This was a radical modification
: it elimi-
nated the illus ion that
the game had an economic
purpos e.
Henceforth one
entered a pure game, and the
dizzines s that
s eized hold of
Babylonian s ociety knew
no limits . Anything
could happen
by drawing lots , the lottery
became "s ecret, free
and general," "every free man
automatically participated
in the
s acred drawings
which took place every s ixty
nights and which
determined his des tiny until the next
drawing. " A lucky draw
could make him a
rich manor a magi, or give him
the women
he des ired; an
unlucky draw could
bring him mutilation or
death
.
In s hort, the interpolation
of chance in all the
inters tices of
the s ocial order
and "in the order of the
world. " All the lot-
tery' s errors
were good, s ince they
only intens ified its logic .
THE
POLITICAL
DESTINYOFSEDUCTION 15 1
Impostures, ruses,
and manipulation could be perfectly integ rat-
ed into the aleatory system : who could say
if
they
were " real,"
that is,
whether they were the result
of
some natural or ration-
al causality, or resulted from chance as determined by the lot-
tery? In principle no one. Predestination encompassed
everything , the lottery's effects were universal . The
Lottery and
the Company could cease to
ex ist, their silent functioning would
be ex ercised over a field
of
total simulation. All " reality" had
entered the secret decisions of the Company, and there was,
in all likelihood, no long er any difference between the real real-
ity and the conting ent reality.
Indeed
it
is possible that
the Company never ex isted, and
the world's order would remain the same . But the assumption
of its ex istence chang es everything . The assumption alone is
enoug h to chang e reality, as it is, as it cannot be otherwise, into
one
immense simulacrum . Reality is nothing other than its own
simulation.
In our " realist" societies, the Company has ceased to ex ist .
Our societies are oblivious to and built on the ruins of this pos-
sible total simulation. We are no long er conscious of the spiral
of simulation that preceded reality . In truth, our unconscious
is found here :
in our incomprehension before the vertig inous
indetermination and simulation that rules the sacred disorder
of our
lives
.
Not in the repression
of a
fewaffects
or
represen-
tations - our insipid conception of the unconscious - but in
our blindness before the Big Game, before the fact that our
" real" fate with all its " real" events has already passed throug h,
not some
anterior life (thoug h
by
itself this hypothesis is su-
perior
to
our metaphysics
of
objective causes), but a cycle of
indetermination, a g ame cycle that is simultaneously arbitrary
and fix ed. Borg es' Lottery is the symbolic incarnation of this
g ame, which has g iven our fate that hallucinatory quality we
take for its truth . The log ic escapes us, thoug h our conscious-
ness of the real is based on
our
unconsciousness of
simulation.
Remember the Babylonian Lottery. Whether or not it ex ists,
the veil of indetermination it throws over our life is absolute .
Its arbitrary decrees rule the least details
of
our ex istence. We
dare not speak of a hidden infrastructure, for
the latter will even-
tually be called upon to appear as truth - while here it is a mat-
15
2 SEDUCTION
t e r of fa t e , t ha t i s , of a ga me
t ha t ha s a lwa ys a lr e a dy be e n
wor ke d
out , ye t r e ma i ns for e ve r
i nde ci phe r a ble .
Bor ge s ' or i gi na li t y
i s
t o
ha ve e xt e nde d t hi s ga me
t o t he e n-
t i r e s oci a l s t r uct ur e .
Whe r e we s e e ga me s a s
s upe r s t r uct ur e , a s
r e la t i ve ly we i ght le s s
compa r e d t o t he good, s oli d
i nfr a s t r uct ur e
of s oci a l r e la t i ons ,
he ha s t ur ne d . t he e nt i r e
e di fi ce ups i de down
a nd ma de
i nde t e r mi na t i on i nt o t he
de t e r mi na nt i ns t a nce .
It i s
no longe r e conomi c
r e a s on, t ha t of la bour
a nd hi s t or y, nor t he
" s ci e nt i fi c"
de t e r mi ni s m of e xcha nge s
whi ch de t e r mi ne s
t he
s oci a l
s t r uct ur e a nd fa t e of
i ndi vi dua ls , but a t ot a l
i nde t e r mi ni s m,
t ha t of t he Ga me a nd of Cha nce .
Pr e de s t i na t i on coi nci de s
he r e
wi t h a t ot a l mobi li t y, a nd
a n a r bi t r a r y s ys t e m wi t h t he
mos t r a d-
i ca l de mocr a cy
(t he i ns t a nt a ne ous e xcha nge
of a ll pos i t i ons -
s ome t hi ng t o
s a t i s fy t he pr e s e nt -da y's
t hi r s t for polyva le nce ) .
Thi s
r e ve r s a l i s e xt r e me ly i r oni c
r e la t i ve t o e ve r y
cont r a ct ,
e ve r y r a t i ona l founda t i on of
t he s oci a l . Pa ct s
conce r ni ng r ule s ,
a nd conce r ni ng t he i r
a r bi t r a r i ne s s (t he L ot t e r y)'
e li mi na t e t he
s oci a l a s we
unde r s t a nd i t , j us t a s r i t ua ls put
a n e nd t o t he la w.
It ha s ne ve r be e n ot he r wi s e
wi t h s e cr e t s oci e t i e s ;
i n t he i r e f-
flor e s ce nce one s hould s e e
a r e s i s t a nce t o t he s oci a l
.
The nos t a lgi a for a
pa ct ua l, r i t ua l, a nd
cont i nge nt s oci a li t y,
t he ye a r ni ng t o
be fr e e of t he cont r a ct
a nd s oci a l r e la t i on,
t he
longi ng for a
cr ue le r i f mor e fa s ci na t i ng
de s t i ny for e xcha nge ,
i s de e pe r
t ha n t he r a t i ona l
i mpe r a t i ve s of t he s oci a l wi t h
whi ch
we ha ve be e n lulle d .
Bor ge s ' t a ke i s pe r ha ps
not a fi ct i on, but
a de s cr i pt i on t ha t
come s clos e t o our for me r
dr e a ms , t ha t i s
t o s a y, t o our
fut ur e a s we ll .
In Byza nt i um,
s oci a l li fe , t he
poli t i ca l or de r , i t s hi e r a r chi e s
a nd e xpe ndi t ur e s
we r e r e gula t e d . by
hor s e r a ce s . Toda y one
s t i ll
be t s on
t he hor s e s , but t he
mi r r or of de mocr a cy
pr oduce s only
a fa i nt r e fle ct i on .
The e nor mous a mount of
mone y e xcha nge d
i n be t t i ng
i s not hi ngcompa r e d t o
t he e xt r a va ga nce of
t he Byza n-
t i ne s ,
whe r e a ll publi c li fe
wa s t i e d t o e que s t r i a n
compe t i t i ons .
St i ll i t i s
s ympt oma t i c of t he ga me 's
i mpor t a nce i n ma ny
s oci a l
a ct i vi t i e s a nd i n t he r a pi d ci r cula t i on of
goods a nd s oci a l
pos i -
t i ons . In Br a zi l t he r e i s
t he Jogo de Bi cho : be t t i ng,
lot t e r i e s a nd
ot he r ga me s
ha ve s e i ze d hold of
e nt i r e s e ct or s of t he popula -
t i on
who r i s k t he i r li fe 's
s a vi ngs a nd s t a t us . A
di s t r a ct i on fr om
unde r de ve lopme nt
one mi ght cla i m, but
e ve n i n i t s wr e t che d
THE
POLITICAL DESTINY
OFSEDUCTION 15 3
modern version, it
provides an echo of cult ures where ludic
andsumpt uary pract ices generat ed
t he essent ial forms andst ruc-
t ures of exchange -
a schema t hat goes very much
against t he
grain of our own cult ure,
most not ably in it s Marxist version.
Underdeveloped? Only t he privileged,
t hose elevat ed by t he
social cont ract , or
by t heir social st at us - it self only
a
simulacrum, andonewit hout even t he
value of a dest iny - can
judge such
aleat ory pract ices as wort hless
when t hey are quit e
superior t o t heir own. For
it is as much a challenge t o t he so-
cial as
t o chance, and indicat ive of a yearning
for a more ad-
vent urous world,
whereoneplays wit h value more
recklessly.
THEDUAL,
THEPOLARANDTHE
DIGITAL
Alottery i s
a s i mulacrum - there
bei ng nothi ng more arti f i -
ci al than to regulate the cours e
of events by the abs urd
decrees
of chance .
But let us not f orget that thi s
i s what anti qui ty di d
wi th the arts of di vi nati on,
us i ng the entrai ls of chi ckens
and
the
f li ght of bi rds ; and i s n' t i t what the
modern art of i nterpre-
tati on conti nues to do,
though wi th f ewer grounds ? It i s
all a
s i mulacrum
. The di f f erence i s that i n
Borges ' Fi cci ones the
game' s rules completely
replace the law and the game
deci des
one' s des ti ny,
whi le i n our s oci ety games
are s i mply margi nal
and f ri volous di vers i ons .
Compared to
Borges ' f i cti onal s oci ety,
bas ed on chance
decrees and a type of
predes ti nati on by the game,
relati ve to
s uch a cruel
order where the ri s ks are
never-endi ng and the
s takes abs olute, we li ve
i n
a
s oci ety of mi ni mal s takes
and ri s ks .
If the terms
were not contradi ctory, one
could s ay that s ecuri -
ty has become our des ti ny. It
mi ght be the cas e, moreover,
that
thi s outcome
wi ll be f atal f or our s oci ety - the
mortali ty of over-
protected s peci es whi ch,
i n thei r domes ti cati on, are
dyi ng of
too much s ecuri ty
.
Nowi f the Babyloni ans
s uccumbed to the lottery' s
verti go,
i t was becaus e
there was s omethi ng i n
the lottery that com-
pletely s educed them, that
enabled them to challenge
every-
thi ng worth
exi s ti ng, i ncludi ng thei r
own exi s tence - and thei r
THEPOLITICAL
DESTINYOFSEDUCTION
15 5
owndeath. By contrast, for us the
social is without seduction.
What is less seductive than the very idea
of the social? The
degree zero of seduction. Even God never fell so low.
Relative tothe dangers
of seduction that haunt the universe
of games and rituals, our own
sociality and the forms of com-
municationand exchange it institutes, appear in
direct propor-
tion
to their secularization under the sign of the Law,
as
extremely impoverished, banal and
abstract .
But this
is still only an intermediary state, for the
age of the
Lawhas passed, and
with
it
that of the socius and the social
contract . Not only are we
nolonger living in an era of rules
and rituals, we are no longer living in
an era of laws and con-
tracts .
We
live
today according toNorms and Models,
and we
donot even have a
term to designate that which is replacing
sociality and the social .
the RULE

the LAW

the NORM
Ritual( ity) Social( ity) ????????
We are presently
living with a minimum of real sociality
and
a maximum of simulation.
Simulationneutralizes the poles that
organize the perspectival space
of the real and the Law, while
draining off the energy potential
that still drives the space of
the Lawand the social . In the
era of models, one must speak
of
the
deterrence of the antagonistic strategies that gave the Law
and the social their stakes
- including a stake in their transgres-
sion
.
Nomore transgression, and
nomore transcendence. But
for all that,
we are no longer in the tragic immanence
of rules
and rituals,
but
in
the cool immanence of norms and
models .
Deterrence, regulation,
feed-back, sequences of tactical elements
in a
non-referential space. . . But above all, in
this age of models,
the digitality
of the signal as a replacement for
the polarity of
the sign.
DUALITY
POLARITY DIGITALITY
These three
logics are exclusive of each other :
- the
dual relation dominates the
game, the ritual and the en-
tire sphere
of the rule.
156
SEDUCTION
-the polarrelation, or
the d ialec tic al or c ontrad ic tory rela-
tion, organizes the universe of the Law, the soc ial, and
meaning .
- the d igitalrelation (but it is no
longer a"relation" -let us
speak instead of the d igital c onnec tion) alloc ates the
spac e of
Norms and Mod els .
In the c ross-play of these three logic s, the c onc ept of
sed uc -
tion in its rad ic al sense (as d uel,
ritualistic , agonistic , with the
stakes
maximized ) must be replac ed by sed uc tion in its "soft"
sense -the sed uc tion of an "ambienc e," or the
playfulerotic i-
zation of auniverse
without stakes .
V
THE"LUDIC" AND
COLDSEDUCTION
For
we are living off seduction
but will die in fascination .
The play of models with their ever-changing
combinations,
is characteristic of a
ludic universe, where everything operates
as possible simulation, where everything, in the
absence of a
God to acknowledgehis creations, can act as counter-evidence
.
Subversive values
have only to wait their turn, andviolenceand
critique are themselves presented as
models. Weare living in
a supple,
curved universe, that no longer has any
vanishing
points. Formerly the reality
principle was defined in terms of
the
coherenceof objects and their use, functions and their in-
stitution, things and their
objective determination - today the
pleasure principle is defined in terms of the conjunction
of
desires and models (of a demand
and its anticipation by simu-
lated
responses) .
The "ludic" is formed
of
the
"play" of the model with the
demand. But given
that thedemand is prompted by themodel,
and
themodel's precession is absolute,
challenges are impossi-
ble. Most of our exchanges
are regulated by game strategies;
but thelatter,
defined as acapacity to foresee all of one's
oppo-
nent's
moves and check them in advance, renders all
stakes im-
possible. Gametheory describes the
ludic character of a world
15
8 SEDUCTION
where,
paradoxically, nothing is at s take.
The "Werbung,"
the s olicitation of advertis ements
and polls ,
all the models of the media and. politics , no
longer claim cre-
dence, only credibility. They are no
longer objects of libidinal
inves tment ; for they are made s electively
available within a range
of choices - with leis ure its elf
now appearing, relative to
work,
as jus t another channel on
the s creen of time (and
will there
s oon be a third or
fourth channel?) . American televis ion,
one
might add, with its 83
channels is the living incarnation
of the
ludic :
one can no longer do anything but
play - change chan-
nels ,
mix programs and create one's
own montage (the
predominance of TV games is
merely an echo, at the level of
content, of this ludic employment
of the medium).
And like
every combinatorial, it is
a s ource of fas cination'. But
one can
no longer s peak of a
s phere of enchantment or
s eduction; in-
s tead, an era of
fas cination is beginning .
Obvious ly, the ludic cannot be equated
with having fun. With
its propens ity for
making connections , the ludic, is more
akin
to detective work
. More generally, it
connotes networks and
their mode of
functioning, the forms of
their permeation and
manipulation
. The ludic encompas s es all
the different ways one
can
"play" with networks , not
in order to es tablis h
alternatives ,
but to dis cover their s tate of
optimal functioning.
We have already
witnes s ed the debas ement of
play to the level
of
function - in play therapy, play s chool,
play-as =cathars is and
play-as -creativity
. Throughout the fields of
education and child
ps ychology,
play has become a "vital
function" 'or neces s ary
phas e of
development. Or els e it has
been grafted onto the
pleas -
ure principle to become a
revolutionary alternative, a
dialecti-
cal overcoming of
the reality principle in
Marcus e, an ideology
of play and
the fes tival for others .
But even as trans gres s ion,
s pontaneity, or aes thetic
dis interes tednes s , play remains
only
a s ublimated form of
the old, directive pedagogy
that gives it
a
meaning, as s igns it an end, and
thereby purges it of its power
of
s eduction. Play as dreaming,
s port, work, res t or as
a trans i-
tional object - or as
the phys ical hygiene
neces s ary for ps y-
chological
equilibrium or for a s ys tem's
regulation or evolution
.
The
very oppos ite of that pas s ion
for illus ion which
once
characterized it .
THEPOLITICAL DESTINY
OFSEDUCTION 15 9
Weare s t i l l s peaki ng, however, of funct i onal at t empt s t o s ub-
ject pl ay t o t he l aw of val ue. What i s more s eri ous i s t he cyber-
net i c abs orpt i on
of pl ay i nt o t he general cat egory of t he l udi c.
The
general evol ut i on of games i s reveal i ng : from compet i -
t i ve games - t eam
s port s , ol d-fas hi oned card games , or even
t abl e foot bal l - t o t he generat i on of pi nbal l machi nes (whi ch
al ready had s creens but were not yet "t el evi s ed," a mi xt ure of
el ect roni cs and hand movement s ), now rendered obs ol et e by
el ect roni c t enni s and ot her comput eri zed games , t hei r s creens
s t reaked wi t h
hi gh-s peed mol ecul es . And t he at omi s t i c mani pu-
l at i on requi red by t he l at t er i s not t o be di s t i ngui s hed from
t he
pract i ces of i nformat i on cont rol i n t he "l abour proces s "
or
t he
fut ure empl oyment of comput ers i n t he domes t i c s phere, whi ch
were al s o preceded by t el evi s i on and
ot her audi ovi s ual ai ds .
The l udi c i s everywhere, even i n t he "choi ce"
of
a brand
of
l aundry det ergent i n t he s upermarket . Wi t hout t oo much ef-
fort ones ees
s i mi l ari t i es wi t h t he worl d of ps ychot ropi c drugs :
for t he l at t er t oo i s l udi c, bei ng not hi ng
but t he mani pul at i on
of a s ens ori al keyboard or neuroni c i ns t rument panel . El ect roni c
games are a s oft drug - onepl ays t hem wi t h t he s ame s omnam-
bul ar abs ence and t act i l e euphori a .
Even t he genet i c code appears
as a command keyboard
for
t he l i vi ng, on whi ch are pl ayed t he i nfi ni t es i mal
combi nat i ons
and vari at i ons t hat det ermi ne t hei r "des t i ny" - a- "t el e"-onomi c
des t i ny t hat unfol ds on t he mol ecul ar s creen of t he code. Much
can be s ai d about t he object i vi t y of t he genet i c code t hat s erves
as a "bi ol ogi cal " prot ot ype for
t he ent i re uni vers e, t hi s com-
bi nat ory, al eat ory and l udi c uni vers e t hat now s urrounds us .
Aft er al l , what i s "bi ol ogy"? What i s t hi s t rut h i t pos s es s es ? Or
i s i t t hat i t pos s es s es
onl y t rut h
. . .
des t i ny t rans formed i nt o an
operat i onal i ns t rument panel . Behi nd t he s creen
of
bi ol ogi cal
remot e cont rol , t here i s no l onger any pl ay - no s t akes , i l l u-
s i ons ,
or
repres ent at i ons
. It i s s i mpl y a mat t er of modul at i ng
t he code, pl ayi ng wi t h i t as one pl ays wi t h t he t onal i t i es and
t i mbres of a s t ereophoni c
s ys t em .
Thel at t er i s a good exampl e
of
t he
l udi c. When mani pul at -
160 SEDUCTION
ing the s ter eo ' s co ntr o ls , o ne' s
co ncer ns ar e no lo nger mus ical
but
techno lo gical : the o ptimal r no dulatio n o f
. the s ys tem' s r ange.
With the magic o f the co ns o le
and ins tr ument panel,
the
manipulatio n o f
the medium pr edo minates .
Co ns ider a game o f
co mputer ches s . Wher e is the
intens ity
o f the game o f
ches s , o r the pleas ur e pr o per to
co mputer s ? The
o ne invo lves play, the o ther the
ludic . The s ame applies to
a
s o ccer match that has been televis ed
. Do n' t think that they
ar e
the s ame match: o ne is
ho t, the o ther co o l - o ne is
a game,
with its
emo tio nal char ge, its br avado and
cho r eo gr aphy, the
o ther is tactile, mo dulated (play-backs ,
clo s e-ups , s weeps , s lo w
mo tio n s ho ts , differ ent
angles o f vis io n, etc . ) . ,The televis ed
match is , abo ve
all els e, a televis ed event, like
the Ho lo caus t
o r the war
in Vietnam, and is bar ely dis tinguis hable
fr o m the
latter
.
Thus
the intr o ductio n o f co lo ur
televis io n in the United
States ,
which had been s lo w and
difficult, o nly to o k o ff when
o ne o f
the majo r netwo r ks decided to
intr o duce co lo ur to tel-
evis ed jo ur nalis m . It was
the per io d o f the war in Vietnam,
and
s tudies
have s ho wn that the "play" o f co lo ur s ,
and the techni-
cal
s o phis ticatio n bo r ne by this inno vatio n,
r ender ed the im-
ages
o f war mo r e bear able to
the viewing public . The
"mo r e"
tr uth, the gr eater the
ludic dis tantiatio n fr o m the
event .
The Ho lo caus t, the televis io n
s pecial .
TheJews ar e no lo nger fo r ced to
pas s thr o ugh the gas cham-
ber s and cr emato r ium
o vens , but thr o ugh the s o und tr ack
and
pictur e s tr ip,
the catho dic s cr een and
micr o pr o ces s o r . The
amnes ia, the
o blivio n, ther eby finally attains an
aes thetic dimen-
s io n -
co ns ummated in r etr o s pective and
r etr o gr es s ive fas hio n,
r ais ed her e to mas s dimens io ns
. Televis io n as the
event' s tr ue
"final s o lutio n . "
The dimens io n o f his to r y that o nce
r emained in the s hado ws
as guilt, no lo nger ex is ts ,
s ince no w "the who le wo r ld
kno ws ,"
the who le
wo r ld has been s haken - a s ur e
s ign that "it" will
never
happen again . In effect, what is
ex o r cized at the co s t o f
o nly a few tear s will
no t happen again, becaus e it, is
no w r ecur -
r ing, and in the ver y fo r m o f
its alleged denunciatio n,
the ver y
THE
POLITICAL
DESTINY
OFSEDUCTION 161
medium of it s alleged exorcis m - t elevis ion . The
s ame forget -
fulnes s , t he s ame liquidat ion, ext erminat ion,
andeven annihi-
lat ion of memoryandhis t ory - t he s ame reces s ive irradiat ion,
t he s ame
echoles s abs orpt ion, t he s ame black hole as Aus ch-
wit z . And
one would have us believe t hat t elevis ion is going
t o releas e us from t he
burden of Aus chwit z by rais ing collec-
t ive cons cious nes s , when t elevis ion perpet uat es it in ot her ways ,
no longer under t he aus pices of a place
of annihilat ion, but of
a medium of dis s uas ion .
TheHolocaus t is , firs t of all (and exclus ively) a t elevis edevent
(one mus t not forget McLuhan's bas ic rule) . That is , it is
an at -
t empt
t o reheat a t ragic but coldhis t orical event , t he firs t great
event of t he
cold s ys t ems , t he-cooling s ys t ems , t he s ys t ems of
dis s uas ion andext erminat ion which would t hen
be deployed
in ot her forms
(including t he Cold War, et c. ) - and an event
t hat concerns cold mas s es (t he
Jews no longer implicat ed, but
in t he end forced
t o manage t heir own deat h, t he mas s es no
longer rebellious - dis s uaded
by deat h, dis s uaded unt o deat h) .
Acold event warmedup by a cold
medium for mas s es , t hem-
s elves cold, who are going t o experience only
a pos t humous
emot ion, a t act ile anddis s uas ive s hudder t hat will enable t hem
t o let t he cat as t rophe s lip int o
oblivion wit h a s ort of aes t het ic
good cons cience.
In order t o reheat all t his , t he
polit ical andpedagogical or-
ches t rat ion t hat followed t he(t elevis ed) event in
an at t empt t o give
it meaning was not exces s ive. The panic before t he
program's
pos s ible
cons equences on t he minds of children ; all t hos e s ocial
workers mobilized t o filt er it , as if t his art ificial
res urrect ion carried
a danger of cont agion! In fact , t he danger
was quit e t he oppo-
s it e:
t hat res ult ing from t he s ocial inert ia of colds ys t ems -
cold
producing cold. Thus t he whole
worldhadt o be mobilized in
order t o recons t it ut e
t hes ocial (warmt h) of communicat ion out
of t he cold mons t er
of ext erminat ion . The programs erved t o
capt ure t he art ificial warmt h of a dead event in
order t o reheat
t he dead bodyof t he s ocial . Hencet he
s upplement arycont ri-
but ions of t he ot her
media at t empt ing t o ext end t he program's
effect s by it s feed-back: t he concurrent polls s econding t he
pro-
gram's enormous , collect ive impact -when,
needles s t o s ay, t hes e
polls
only
verified t he t elevis ual s ucces s
of
t he
medium it s elf.
16 2 SEDUCTION
One should speak of t elev i si on' s cold li g ht , and
whyi t i s i n-
offensi v e t o t he i mag i nat i on(i ncludi ng t he
i mag i nat i onof chi l-
dren) . It i s i nnocuous becausei t no
long er conv eys an i mag i nary,
for t he si mple reason t hat i t i s no long er an
i mag e. Here i t con-
t rast s wi t h t he ci nema whi ch (t houg h
i ncreasi ng ly cont ami nat ed
by t elev i si on) i s
st i ll endowed wi t h an i nt ense i mag i nary- be-
cause i t i s an i mag e.
Thi s i s not si mply t o speak of fi lm as a
mere screen or v i sual
form, but as a myt h, somet hi ng t hat
st i ll
resembles a double,
a mi rror, a fant asy, a dream, et c. None of
t hi s i n t he TV i mag e.
It doesn' t sug g est anyt hi ng , i t mesmer-
i zes . . . It i s
onlya screen or, bet t er, i t i s a mi ni at uri zed
t ermi nal
t hat i mmedi at elyappears i n your head (you are t he
screen and
t he t elev i si on i s wat chi ng you), t ransi st ori zes
all, your neurons
and passes for a mag net i c t ape - a t ape, not an
i mag e.
A ll t hi s belong s t o t he ludi c realm
where one encount ers a
cold seduct i on - t he " narci ssi st i c" spell of elect roni c
and i n-
format i on syst ems, t he cold
at t ract i on of t he t ermi nals and medi -
ums t hat we
hav e become, surrounded as we are by
consoles,
i solat ed and seduced
by t hei r mani pulat i on.
The possi bli t y of
modulat i ons wi t hi n an
undi fferent i at ed
uni v erse and of t he " play" of unst able set s of
element s, i s nev er
wi t hout
fasci nat i on. It i s ev en hi g hly possi ble t hat
ludi c and
li bi nal fli rt wi t h each ot her somewhere i n
t hedi rect i on of ran-
dom syst ems, by
v i rt ue of a desi re t hat no long er leads t o
i n-
fract i ons
i n t he leg al sense, but ent ai ls di ffract i on i n
all senses
wi t hi n a uni v erse t hat no long er knows t he
leg al sphere. Thi s
desi re also belong s t o t he
ludi c realm wi t h i t s t opolog yof
shi ft -
i ng syst ems, and i s an added
source of pleasure (or ang ui sh)
for each of
t hepart i cles mov i ng wi t hi n t he
net works . We are
all accorded t hi s li g ht , psychedeli c g i ddi ness
whi ch result s from
mult i ple or successi v e connect i ons and
di sconnect i ons . We are
all i nv i t ed t o
become mi ni at uri zed " g ame syst ems, "
i
. e. ,
mi crosyst ems wi t h t he pot ent i al t o reg ulat e
t hei r ownrandom
funct i oni ng .
THEPOLITICAL
DESTINYOFSEDUCTION 1 6 3
This is the modern
meaning
of
p l ay , the "l udic" sense, con-
noting the sup p l eness and p ol y val ence of combinations
. Un-
derstood in this sense, "p l ay , " its
very p ossibil ity , is at the basis
of
the metastabil ity of sy stems. It has
nothing
to do
with p l ay
as a dual or agonistic
rel ation; it is the col d seduction that
governs the sp heres of information and
communication. And
it is in this col d seduction
that the social and its rep resenta-
tions are
now wearing themsel ves thin.
We are al l quite famil iar with this
immense p rocess of simu-
l ation
. Non-directive interviews, cal l -in shows, al l -out
p artici-
p ation
- the extortionof sp eech : "It concerns y ou, y ou are
the
majority , y ou are what's
hap p ening. " Andthe p robing of op in-
ions,
hearts, minds, and the unconscious to show
how much
"it" sp eaks . The news has been invaded by this
p hantom con-
tent, this homeop hathic transp l ant, this waking dream of com-
munication. A circul ar
construction where one p resents the
audience
with what it wants, an integrated circuit of p erp etual
sol icitation. The immense energies sp ent
in maintaining this
simul acrum
at arm's l ength, to avoid the brutal dis-simul ation
that woul d occur shoul d the real ity of a radical
l oss
of
mean-
ing become too
evident .
Seduction
/simul acrum: communication as the
functioning
of the social within a cl osed circuit, where signs
dup l icate an
undiscoverabl e real ity. The social
contract has become a "simu-
l ation p act" seal ed by the media and the news .
And nobody ,
one might add, is comp l etel y taken in: the news
is exp erienced
as
an ambience, a service, or hol ogram of the social . The mass-
es resp ondto the simul ation of
meaningwith a kind of reverse
simul ation; they resp ond to dissuasion with disaffection, and
to il l usions with an enigmatic bel ief
. It al l moves around, and
can give the imp ression of an op erative seduction. But such
seduction has no more
meaning than any thing el se, seduction
here connotes onl y a kind of l udic adhesion to simul ated
p ieces
of information, a
kind
of
tactil e attraction maintained by the
model s .
164 SEDUCTION
"Tele-phathics . "
"Rogers here - I amreceiving
you
f ive
on f ive. " "Do youhear
me? Yes, I hear you. " . "We receive you, come in . " "Yes, we are
speaking
. "
This is the litany of the radio bands, particularly the
alternative
or pirate stations . One plays at speaking and listen-
ing; one plays at communication
using the most sophisticated
technology f or the latter' s mise en scene . The phatic f unction
of language, used
to
establish
contact and sustain speech' s f or-
mal dimension : this f unction f irst isolated
and described by
Malinowski with ref erence to the Melanesians, then by Jakob-
son in his grid of language' s f unctions, becomes hypertrophied
in the tele-dimension
of the communications networks . Con-
tact f or contact' s sake becomes the empty f ormwith which lan-
guage seduces itself when it
no
longer
has anything to say.
The latter concerns our own culture . What Malinowski
described was something quite dif f erent : a symbolic altercation
or duel of words . By these ritual phrases and palavers without
content, the natives
were
still
throwing a challenge and of f er-
ing a gif t, as in a pure ceremonial . Language has no need f or
"contact" : it is we who need communication to have a specif ic
"contact" f unction, precisely because it is eluding us . That is
whyJakobson was able
to
isolate it in his
analysis of
language,
while both the concept and the terms
to express
it are
absent
f rom other cultures . Jakobson' s grid and his axiomatics of com-
munication are contemporaneous with a change in language' s
f ortune - it is beginning to no longer communicate anything .
It has thus become urgent to analytically restore the f unction-
al possibility of communication, and in particular the "phatic"
f unction that,
in
logical terms, is a simple truism: if it speaks,
then it speaks . But in ef f ect it no longer
speaks, ' and
the
dis-
covery of the "phatic" f unction is symptomatic of the need to
inject contact, establish
connections, and speak tirelessly
sim-
ply in order to render language possible . Adesperate situation
where even simple contact appears wondrous .
If the phatic has become hypertrophied in all
our
communi-
cations systems ( i . e. , within the media and inf ormation process-
ing
systems), it is because tele-distance ensures that speech
literally no longer has any meaning. One says that one is speak-
ing, but by speaking one is only verif ying the network and the
THEPOLITICAL DESTINYOF
SEDUCTION 16
5
fact that one i s li nked up wi th i t .
There i s not even an "other"
at the other end, for i n a s i mple reci procati on
of s i g nals of recog -
ni ti on there i s no
long er ani denti fi able trans mi tter or recei ver,
but
s i mply two termi nals . The one termi nal's s i g nal to the
other
i s merely an
i ndi cati on that s omethi ng i s g oi ng throug h and
that, therefore,
nothi ng i s happeni ng . Perfect di s s uas i on.
Two termi nals do not two i nterlocutors make. In "tele"
s pace
(the followi ng als o holds true for televi s i on) ,
there are no long er
any determi nate terms or pos i ti ons .
Only termi nals i n a pos i -
ti on of ex-termi nati on
. It i s here, morever, that Jakobs on's en-
ti re g ri d falls apart, for i ts vali di ty i s
res tri cted to the clas s i c
confi g urati on of
di s cours e and communi cati on. The g ri d los es
i ts
meani ng when appli ed to networks where pure
"di g i tali ty"
rei g ns . In di s cours e there i s s ti ll a polari ty of terms ,
di s ti ncti ve
oppos i ti ons that reg ulate
the advent of meani ng. As tructure,
s yntax and s pace of
di fference, s ti ll reg ulate di alog ue, as i m-
pli ed
by
the s i g n (s i g ni fi er / s i g ni fi ed) and the mes s ag e (trans -
mi tter/ recei ver) , etc. But the 0/ 1 of bi nary or di g i tal
s ys tems
i s no long er a di s ti ncti ve oppos i ti on or
es tabli s hed di fference.
It i s a "bi t," the s malles t uni t of electroni c
i mpuls e - no long er
a uni t of meani ng , but an i denti fi catory
puls e. It i s no long er
lang uag e, but i ts radi cal di s s uas i on. Thi s i s what the matri x of
i nformati on and communi cati on i s li ke, and how the networks
functi on. The need for "contact" i s mos t cruelly felt,
for not
only i s there no duel relati on as
wi th the Melanes i an's li ng ui s -
ti c potlach, but there i s no
long er even the i nter-i ndi vi dual log i c
of
exchang e found i n clas s i cal lang uag e (that of Jakobs on) . Di s -
curs i ve duali ty and polari ty have been s ucceeded by
the di g i -
tali ty of data proces s i ng . The total as cendancy of the
medi a and
networks
. The cold elevati on of the electroni c medi a, and of
the mas s i ts elf as medi um .
TELE: there are no
long er anythi ng but termi nals . AUTO: each
pers on i s
hi s
or
her owntermi nal . (` Tele" and "auto" can them-
s elves be s een as worki ng pi eces or commuti ng
parti cles that
are connected to
words , li ke a vi deo i s connected to a g roup
of
people, or televi s i on to thos e watchi ng i t) . The g roup
wi th
a vi deo camera i s i ts elf
i ts owntermi nal . It records , adjus ts and
manag es i ts elf electroni cally. It turns i ts elf on, s educes
i ts elf .
The g roup i s s educed and even eroti ci zed
by the i ns tantane-
1 6 6 SEDUCTION
ous report i t has
of
i tsel f.
Soon sel f-management
w i l l
be uni ver-
sal , the provi nce of every person, group and termi nal . Sel f-
seducti on w i l l become the norm
of
al l
the charged parti cl es
i n the netw orks or systems.
The body i tsel f, operated
by remote control from the genet-
i c code, i s i tsel f no more than i ts ow ntermi nal ;
i t has no other
concern than the opti mal sel f-management
of
i ts memory banks.
Pure magneti zati on - that of the
response by the questi on,
the real by the model , the 0 by the 1 , the netw ork by i ts very
exi stence, the
speakers by thei r mere connecti on, the pure tac-
ti l i ty
of
the si gnal ,
the sheer vi rtue of "contact, " the total af-
fi ni ty
of one termi nal for another : thi s i s the i mage of seducti on,
scattered and di ffused throughout al l
our
current
systems.
A
sel f-seducti on/sel f-management
that si mpl y refl ects the net-
w orks" ci rcul ari ty, and the
shortci rcui ti ng of each of thei r atoms
or parti cl es. (Some mi ght speak. here of narci ssi sm, and w hy
not?
If onl y
because one shoul d not transpose terms l i ke nar-
ci ssi sm and seducti on to a regi ster that
does
not concern them,
that of si mul ati on) .
Thus accordi ng to Jean Querzol a i n "Le si l i ci um fl eur de peau"
(Traverses,
no. 1 4/1 5) : psychobi ol ogi cal technol ogy - al l the
computer prosthesi s and
sel f-adjusti ng el ectroni c' netw orks w e
possess - provi des us w i th a ki nd
of
strange bi oel ectroni c mi r-
ror, i n w hi ch each person, l i ke some di gi tal narci ssus, i s goi ng
to
sl i de al ong
the trajectory of a death dri ve and si nk i n hi s or
her ow n i mage. Narci ssus
= narcosi s (McLuhan had al ready
made the connecti on):
El ectroni c narcosi s : i t i s the ul ti mate ri sk of di gi -
tal
si mul ati on
. . .
We w oul d sl i p from Oedi pus to
Narci ssus. . . At the end
of
the sel f-management
of
our bodi es and pl easures there w oul d be a sl ow
narci ssi sti c
narcosi s .
In
a w ord, w i th si l i con, w hat
happens to the real i ty pri nci pl e? I am not sayi ng
that the w orl d's di gi tal i zati on w i l l soon put an end
to
Oedi pus
.
I
am noti ng that the devel opment of
bi ol ogy and i nformati on
technol ogy i s accompa-
ni ed by the di ssol uti on of the personal i ty struc-
ture w e cal l Oedi pal . The di ssol uti on of these
THEPOLITICAL DESTINYOFSEDUCTION 167
structures uncovers another region,
where the
father is absent : it has to do with the maternal, the
oceanic
feeling and the death drive. It
is
not a neu-
rosis that threatens, but something of the order of
a psychosis . Apathological narcissism . . . We believe
that we understand the forms of the social bond
built on Oedipus .
But when the latter
no
longer
functions, what will power do?
After authority,
seduction?
The finest example of this "bionic mirror" and "narcissistic
necrosis" is cloning, the extreme form of self-seduction : from
the Same to the Same without going through the Other
.
In the United States a child might be born in the same way
as a geranium, by taking cuttings . The first child-clone - geneal-
ogy by vegetative multiplication . The first child born from the
single cell of an individual, his "father," the sole parent, of which
he will be the exact
copy,
the perfect twin, the
double (D
. Ror-
vik, `Ason image : la copie d'un homme"). Infinite human propa-
gation by cuttings, with each cell of an individuated organism
capable of becoming the matrix for an identical individual .
My genetic inheritance was fixed once and for all
when a certain spermatozoid met a certain ovary.
This inheritance bears the formula for all the bio-
chemical processes that have created me
and en-
sure my functioning . Acopy of this formula is in-
scribed in each of the tens of billions of cells that
constitute me. Each of them knows my makeup ;
before being a cell of my liver or blood, it is a cell
of me . It is therefore theoretically possible to con-
struct an individual identical to myself from any
one of them . (Pr. A
.
Jacquard)
Projection andinternment in the mirror of the genetic code.
There
is no better prosthesis than D. N. A
. ,
no
finer
narcissistic
extension than that newimage bestowed on modern beings in
place of their specular image : their molecular formula. Here
is where one will find one's "truth" - in the indefinite repeti-
16 8 SEDUCTION
tion
of
one's " r ea l , " biol ogica l being . This na r cissism, whose
sour ce is no l onger a mir r or but a for mul a , is a monstr ous pa r o-
dy of the myth of Na r cissus . Acol d na r cissism, a col d sel f-
seduction, without even tha t minima l dista nce
necessa r y for
the exper ience of onesel f a s a n
il l usion . The ma ter ia l iza tion of
the r ea l , biol ogica l doubl e in the cl one cuts shor t the possibil -
ity of pl a ying with one's own ima ge a nd, ther eby, pl a ying with
one's own dea th.

'
The doubl e is a n ima gina r y figur e tha t, l ik e the, soul or
one's
sha dow, or one's ima ge
in a mir r or , ha unts the subject with a
fa int dea th tha t ha s to be consta ntl y wa r ded off. If it ma ter ia l -
izes, dea th is imminent . This fa nta stic pr oposition is nowl iter -
a l l y r ea l ized in cl oning . The cl one is the ver y ima ge of
dea th,
but without the symbol ic il l usion tha t once ga ve it its
cha r m .
Something of the subject's intima cy with himsel f
r ests
on
the
imma ter ia l ity of
his
doubl e, on
the fa ct tha t it is a nd r ema ins
a pha nta sy. One
ca n a nd must dr ea m thr oughout one's l ife of
the per fect dupl ica tion or mul tipl ica tion of one's
being, but it
r ema ins a dr ea m, a nd is
destr oyed when one tr ies to ma k e it
r ea l . The sa me hol ds
for the pr ima l scene or tha t of seduction :
they too
onl y wor k when r eca l l ed a ndpha nta sized, never when
r ea l . It wa s up to our per iod to tr y a nd ma ter ia l ize this
pha nta -
sy - l ik e so ma ny other s - a nd by wa yof tota l confusion,
cha nge
the pl a y with one's doubl e
fr om a
subtl e
excha nge with dea th
a nd the other into a n eter nity of the sa me .
The dr ea m of eter na l twins a s a substitute for sexua l r epr oduc-
tion . Acel l ul a r dr ea m of schizogenesis - the
sur est for m of
pa r enthood, since
it fina l l y a l l ows one to bypa ss the other , a nd
go fr om the sa me to the sa me
(one wil l stil l r equir e a woma n's
uter us, a nda hol l owed out ovum, but these a ids a r e shor t-l ived
a nd a nonymous - a ny fema l e pr osthesis wil l do).
A
mono-
cel l ul a r utopia tha t, by wa y of genetics, wil l ena bl e
compl ex
beings to a tta in
the destiny
of
pr otozoa .
Is ther e a dea th dr ive tha t pushes sexed beings towa r ds a for m
of r epr oduction a nter ior to their a cquisition of sexua l
identi-
ties - (mor eover , doesn't
this fissipa r ous for m, this pr ol ifer a -
tion by contiguity conjur e up dea th in the deepest r ecesses of
our ima gina r y - a s something tha t denies sexua l ity a nd seek s
to a nnihil a te it, the l a tter being the bea r er of
l ife a nd ther efor e
THEPOLITICALDESTINYOFSEDUCTION 169
a c r i t i c al and mor t al for m of r epr oduc t i on?)
-
and
t hat si mul -
t aneousl y pushes
t hem
t o deny
al l al t er i t y
so
t hat t hey need
no
l onger st r i v e for anyt hi ng but t he per pet uat i on of an i den-
t i t y, t he t r anspar enc y of a genet i c c ode al l t he mor e dedi c at ed
t o
pr oc r eat i on?
Let us l eav e t he deat h dr i v e. Per haps we ar e deal i ng wi t h a
fant asy of sel f-engender i ng? But no, for t he subjec t mi ght dr eam
of el i mi nat i ng t he par ent al fi gur es and ev en subst i t ut i ng hi m-
sel f for t hem, but he c annot el i mi nat e t he symbol i c st r uc t ur e
of pr oc r eat i on
: when
one bec omes one's
ownc hi l d, one i s st i l l
t he c hi l d
of someone. Cl oni ng by c ont r ast , abol i shes not just
t he Mot her , but t he Fat her , t he c r ossi ng of t hei r genes, t he i m-
mi xt ur e of t hei r di ffer enc es, and abov e al l t he duel ac t t hat en-
gender i ng supposes
.
The
per son c l oned does not engender
hi msel f: he c omes
t o bud
fr om a segment . One mi ght spec u-
l at e on t he weal t h of t hese pl ant -l i ke br anc hi ngs t hat di ssol v e
Oedi pal sexual i t y i n fav our of an "non-human" sex - but t he
fac t r emai ns t hat bot h t he Fat her and Mot her hav e di sappear ed,
and i n fav our
of
a mat r i x/c ode [ t he
wor d
"mat r i c e" means bot h
"mat r i x" and "womb"]. No mor e mot her , just a mat r i x . And
henc efor t h i t i s t he mat r i x of t he genet i c c ode t hat wi l l "gi v e
bi r t h" wi t hout
end
i n
an oper at i v e
manner
pur ged of
al l c on-
t i ngent sexual i t y.
Nor c an one speak any l onger of a subjec t , si nc e t he i den-
t i t ar i an r edupl i c at i on
put s
an end
t o
i t s di v i si on . The mi r r or
st age i s abol i shed, or r at her par odi ed i n monst r ous fashi on,
mar ki ng t he end of t he age-ol d dr eam of t he subjec t 's nar c i s-
si st i c pr ojec t i on
.
For t he l at t er st i l l supposes a
mi r r or ,
t he
mi r -
r or i n whi c h t he
subjec t al i enat es hi msel f i n or der t o fi nd
hi msel f, or st ar es at hi msel f onl y
t o
see hi s own deat h . But her e
t her e i s no mi r r or : an i ndust r i al objec t wi t hi n a ser i es does not
"mi r r or " t he i dent i c al objec t t hat suc c eeds i t . The one i s nev er
a mi r age, an i deal or danger for t he ot her . At most suc h objec t s
c an be added up, for t hey hav e not been engender ed sexual l y
and ar e not awar e of deat h .
Asegment
does not r equi r e t he medi at i on of t he
i magi nar y
for i t s r epr oduc t i on - no mor e t han an ear t hwor m. Eac h seg-
ment of a
wor m
i s r epr oduc ed di r ec t l y as t he c ompl et e
wor m
- eac h c el l of an Amer i c an i ndust r i al i st c an gi v e r i se t o a new
170 SEDUCTION
i n d u s t r i a l i s t . Ju s t a s ea ch fr a gmen t of a hol ogr a m ca n become
a ma t r i x of t he compl et e hol ogr a m; a l l t he i n for ma t i on bei n g
con t a i n ed i n ea ch of t he s ca t t er ed fr a gmen t s .
The
s a me l ogi c ma r ks t he en d of t he con cept of t ot a l i t y .
If
a l l t he i n for ma t i on ca n be fou n d i n ea ch of t he pa r t s , t he whol e
l os es i t s mea n i n g. It a l s o ma r ks t he en d of t he bod y , of t hi s s i n -
gu l a r bei n g we ca l l t he bod y , t hi s s i n gu l a r con fi gu r a t i on t ha t
ca n n ot be s egmen t ed i n t o a d d i t i on a l cel l s , a s wi t n es s ed by t he
fa ct of s exu a l i t y . Pa r a d oxi ca l l y , cl on i n g wi l l fa br i ca t e s exed be-
i n gs i n per pet u i t y ,
s i n ce t hey
wi l l
r es embl e
t hei r
mod el s ,
even
a s
t he
s ex or ga n s l os e
t hei r
fu n ct i on . Bu t t hen s ex
' i s
n ot a fu n c-
t i on , for i t exceed s a l l t he bod y ' s pa r t s a n d fu n ct i on s . In d eed ,
i t exceed s a l l t he d a t a t ha t ca n be obt a i n ed a bou t t he bod y ,
whi ch t he gen et i c cod e cl a i ms t o col l ect . Thi s i s why t he l a t t er
ca n on l y cl ea r t he wa y t o a t y pe of a u t on omou s r epr od u ct i on ,
i n d epen d en t
of
s ex a n d
d ea t h
.

;
The bi o- phy s i o- a n a t omi ca l s ci en ces ha d a l r ea d y begu n t he
a n a l y t i ca l d ecompos i t i on
of
t he
bod y
wi t h i t s d i s s ect i on i n t o
or ga n s a n d fu n ct i on s. Mi cr o- mol ecu l a r gen et i cs i s i t s l ogi ca l con -
s equ en ce a t a mu ch hi gher l evel of a bs t r a ct i on a n d s i mu l a t i on
:
t he n u cl ea r l evel of t he comma n d cel l , t he d i r ect i ve l evel of
t he gen et i c cod e a r ou n d whi ch t hi s en t i r e pha n t a s ma gor i a i s
or ga n i zed .
In t he mecha n i s t i c vi s i on
we ca n
s t i l l
s pea k of
"t r a d i t i on a l "
s i mu l a t i on , ea ch or ga n bei n g on l y a pa r t i a l a n d d i ffer en t i a t ed
pr os t hes i s . In t he bi o- cy ber n et i c vi s i on , t he s ma l l es t u n d i ffer en -
t i a t ed el emen t , t he cel l becomes a n embr y on i c pr os t hes i s of
t he en t i r e bod y .
The
for mu l a i n s cr i bed i n ea ch cel l becomes
t he t r u e mod er n pr os t hes i s of a l l bod i es . For i f a pr os t hes i s i s
gen er a l l y a n a r t i fa ct t ha t r epl a ces a fa i l i n g or ga n , or a n i n -
s t r u men t a l pr ol on ga t i on of t he bod y , t hen t he
DNA
mol ecu l e
t ha t con t a i n s a l l t he d a t a r el a t i ve t o a l i vi n g bei n g, i s t he pr os t he-
s i s pa r excel l en ce, s i n ce i t wi l l a l l ow t ha t bei n g t o pr ol on g i t -
s el f i n d efi n i t el y. In t r u t h, i t wi l l become n ot hi n g mor e t ha n t he
i n d efi n i t e s er i es of i t s cy ber n et i c a va t a r s .
We a r e s pea ki n g of a pr os t hes i s even mor e a r t i fi ci a l t ha n a n y
THEPOLITICAL DESTINY
OFSEDUCTION 171
mechanical prosthesis . For the genetic code is not "natural . "
Whenever a part
is abstracted from the whole and rendered
autonomous, it alters the whole
by substituting itself for it (pro-
thesis - this is its etymological meaning).
In this sense one can
say that the genetic code, which claims
to condense an entire
living being
because it contains all the latter' s "data"
(genetic
simulation
is incredibly violent) is an artifact, an artificial matrix,
a simulation matrix, from which
will proceed, no longer by
reproduction, but by pure and simple repetition,
identical be-
ings assigned
to the same commands .
Cloning
is, therefore, the ultimate state of the body' s simula-
tion, where
the individual, reduced to an abstract genetic for-
mula, is destined to
serial multiplication
.
Walter Benjamin said
that in the age of mechanical reproduction the work
of
art
loses
its "aura," the unique quality of its here and now, its aesthetic
form : it
is no longer destined for seduction but reproduction,
and in its new destiny, takes
on apolitical form. The original
is lost, and only nostalgia can restore
its "authenticity. " The ex-
treme form of this process is to be found in
our contemporary
mass media, where there never was an original, things being
conceived from the start in terms of their unlimited reproduci-
bility.
This is exactly what happens to human beings with cloning .
This is what happens to the body when conceived only
as
in-
formational
stock, or as data to be processed . Nothing then pre-
vents its serial reproduction in
the same terms Benjamin used
when speaking of industrial objects
or images . The genetic
model has precedence over all possible bodies .
Behind this
reversal lies the incursion of a technology that
Benjamin had already described
as a total medium - an enor-
mous prosthesis for the generation of identical and indistin-
guishable
objects and images - but without yet conceiving of
the current deepening
of this technology, which makes possi-
ble the generation of identical beings, without any
possible
return to an original being. The
prosthesis of the industrial age
were still external,
exotecbnical - while those that we are coming
1 7 2 SEDUCTION
t o kno w have branched
o ut and beenint erio rized : eso t echnical.
We live in an age o f
so ft t echno lo gies, o f genet ic and ment al
so ft ware. The pro st hesis o f t he indust rial age, it s machines,
st ill
paid heed t o t he bo dy in o rder t o mo dify
it s image - and were
t hemselves met abo lized
in
an
imaginary, t his met abo lism be-
co ming part o f t he bo dy's
image: . But whensimulat io n reaches
t he po int o f no ret urn,
whent he pro st hesis infilt rat e t he bo dy's
ano nymo us, micro -mo lecular co re,
when t hey fo rce t hemselves
o n t he bo dy as it s
mat rix, and burn o ut all t he succeeding sym-
bo lic
circuit s such t hat all fut ure bo dies will be o nly
it s immut a-
ble repet it io n - t hen t he bo dy and it s hist o ry have co me t o an
end, t he individual being no mo re t hant he
cancero us met ast asis
o f his basic fo rmula .
Is no t t he clo ning o f individuals
fro m an individual Xsimi-
lar t o t he pro liferat io n o f a
single cell o ne ident ifies wit h cancer?
There is a clo se
relat io n bet ween t he co ncept o f t he
genet ic
co de
and t he pat ho lo gy o f cancer. The co de designat es
t he
minimal fo rmula t o which o ne can reduce an
individual such
t hat he can
(and can o nly) be repeat ed, while wit h cancer
t he
same
t ype
o f
cell pro liferat es wit ho ut co ncern fo r t he
o rganic
laws
o f
t he who le. Thus wit h clo ning o ne wit nesses
t he repet i-
t io n o f t he Same, t he pro liferat io n o f
a single mat rix . Fo rmerly
sexual repro duct io n prevent ed t his, but t o day
o ne can finally
iso lat e t he genet ic
mat rix
o f
ident it y, and eliminat e all t he
different ial
vicissit udes t hat gave individuals t heir aleat o ry
charm . Or t heir seduct iveness.
The met ast asis t hat began wit h indust rial o bject s ends
in cel-
lular o rganizat io n. Cancer is t he disease
t hat do minat es co n-
t empo rary pat ho lo gy, because it is t he very
fo rm o f t he co de's
virulence : t he aggravat ed
redundancy o f t he same cells, o r t he
same
signals .
Clo ning is very much in
keeping wit h t he irreversible t en-
dency t o
"ext end and deepen t he syst em's int ernal t ransparen-
cy
by increasing it s po ssibilit ies o f self-regulat io n and
mo difying
it s info rmat io nal eco no my" (Querzo la)
.
A ll drives will be expelled .
Everyt hing int erio r (net wo rks,
THEPOLITICAL DESTINY
OF
SEDUCTION
17 3
functions, organs, conscious or unconscious circuits) will be
exteriorized in the form of prosthesis that will constitute an ideal
corpus orbiting around the body, but with the latter as its own
satellite. Every nucleus will be enucleated and projected into
spatial orbit .
The clone is the materialization of the genetic formula in hu-
man form. But it will not stop there. All the body's secrets -
sex, anguish, even the subtle pleasures derived from mere ex-
istence - everything that you do not, and do not want to know
about yourself,
will
be turned into bio-feed-back, and returned
to you
in
the
form
of " built-in" digital information . It is the bi-
onic mirror stage (Querzola) .
A digital Narcissus instead of a triangular Oedipus . The
hypostasis of the artificial double, the clone will be your guar-
dian angel, the visible form of your unconscious and the flesh
of
your flesh, not metaphorically but literally. Your " fellow crea-
ture" will henceforth be the clone with its hallucinatory resem-
blance, such that you will never be alone, and will never have
any secrets . " Love your neighbour as yourself" - the difficul-
ties of living the Gospel will be resolved . Your neighbour is
yourself. Love is therefore total . Total self-seduction .
The masses themselves form a clone-like apparatus that func-
tions without the mediation of the other. In the last analysis,
the masses are simply the sum
of
all the
systems'
terminals
-
a network travelled by digital impulses (this is what forms a
mass) . Oblivious to external injunctions, they constitute them-
selves into integrated circuits given over to manipulation (self-
manipulation) and " seduction" (self-seduction) .
In truth, nobody any longer knows how a representational
apparatus works, or even if it still exists . Still, it is becoming
increasingly urgent to rationalize possible occurrences in the
universe of simulation . What happens between an absent,
hypothetical
pole of
power
and the neutral, elusive pole formed
by the masses? The answer : seduction . Things work by
seduction .
But such seduction suggests the workings of a social world
17 4 SEDUCTION
that weno longer comprehend, and a poli ti cal' world whose
structures havefaded. In placeof thelatter, seducti on gi ves ri se
to an i mmenseblank area traversed by tepi d currents of
speech,
or a malleable network lubri cated by magneti c
i mpulses. The
world i s no longer dri ven by power, but fasci nati on, no
longer
by producti on, but seducti on .
Thi s
seducti on
i s, however, no
morethan an empty declarati on formed of si mulated concepts.
The
di scourses
held by both the " strategi sts" of mass desi re
(the poli ti ci ans, adverti sers, organi zers, engi neers of the soul,
and of themi nd, etc. ) and the " analysts" of
thei r strategi es, these
di scourses that descri be the functi oni ng of thesoci al or
the
po-
li ti cal, or what
remai ns
of
there, i n
terms of
seducti on, they
areas vacuous as the poli ti cal spacei tself. They,si mply refract
the empti ness
of
that about whi ch they speak. " The medi a
seduce themasses," " the masses seducethemselves" - theuse
of thewordseducti on here i s i ncredi bly shallowand hackneyed.
Corrupted
of
i ts li teral meani ng, whi ch i mpli escharm andmortal
enchantment, theterm comesto si gni fy thesoci al and techni -
cal lubri cati on requi red for smooth relati ons - a smooth semi -
urgy, a soft technology. The term then has an " ecologi cal"
connotati on, and marks thepassage from hard to soft
energi es.
Soft energy, soft seducti on
. The
soci al
made scarce.
Wi th thi s
di ffuse,
tensi le form
of
seducti on, ori e i s no longer
speaki ng of theari stocrati c seducti on of duel
relati ons. Onei s
speaki ng of a seducti on revi ewed and revi sed by thei deology of
desi re. Apsychologi zed seducti on that results from i ts vulgari zati on
wi th the ri se i n the West of the i magi nary fi gure of
desi re.
Thi s fi gure
does
not belong
to
the masters, but washi stori -
cally produced by theoppressed under thesi gn of thei r li bera-
ti on, and has been deepened by the
fai lure
of
successi ve
revoluti ons. As a form, desi re marks thepassagefrom thei r sta-
tus as objects to that of subjects, but thi s passage i s i tself
only
a morerefi ned, i nteri ori zed perpetuati on of
thei r servi tude. The
fi rst gli mmeri ngs
of
mass subjecti vi ty at the dawn of modern
and revoluti onary ti mes - thefi rst gli mmeri ngs of the fact
that
the masses were subjects and could manage
thei r own servi -
THEPOLITICAL DESTINYOFSEDUCTION 17 5
tude under the sign of their own desires! Large-scale seduction
nowbegins . For if an object can simply be dominated, the sub-
ject of desire, by contrast, has to be seduced.
This soft strategy will spread, socially and historically. The
masses will be psychologized in order to be seduced, they will
be rigged up with desires
in
order to be distracted .
Yesterday
they had a (mystified!) consciousness
and
were
alienated
- to-
day they have an unconscious and (repressed and corrupted)
desires and are seduced . Yesterday
they
were diverted from the
(revolutionary) truth of history - today they are diverted from
the truth of their own desires . The poor, seduced and manipu-
lated masses! Where once they had to endure domination un-
der the
threat
of violence, nowthey must accept it
by dint
of
seduction.
Speaking more generally, the theoretical hallucination of
desire, with its diffuse libidinal
psychology, serves as a
back-
drop to that simulacrum of seduction which one now finds
everywhere. Having replaced the world of surveillance, it charac-
terizes the vulnerability of both individuals and masses to soft
injunctions
.
Distilled in homeophatic
doses
throughout all per-
sonal and social relations, the seductive shadowof this discourse
hovers today over the desert
of
social relations, and of power
itself .
In this sense, we truly live in an era of seduction. But we can
no longer speak of that form of absorption
or
potential engulf-
ment, that fateful distraction from which no one or no " reali-
ty" can ever be completely safe (perhaps there is no longer
enough reality to deflect, nor truth to subvert) . Nor even of the
corruption of innocence
or
virtue (there is
no
longer sufficient
morality - or perversion - for that) . All that remains is to seduce
in order to seduce? " Seduce me. " " Let me seduce you . " It is
the
seduction that remains when
all
the stakes have been
with-
drawn. We are no longer speaking about a violence commit-
ted against meaning or about its silent extermination, but about
what is left to language when it no longer has anything to say.
No longer a vertiginous loss, but the minimalist form of mutu-
17 6 SEDUCTION
a l gra tifica tion two l ingu is tic beings ca n give ea ch other in a n
enerva ted s ocia l rel a tion . "Sedu ce me . " "Let me s edu ce you . "
In this s ens e, s edu ction is everywhere, s u rreptitiou s l y or open-
l y, bl ending in with the a mbia nce, the cons ta nt s ol icita tions ,
with excha nge pu re a nd s impl e. It is the s edu ction of s tu dent
a nd tea cher ( I
a m
s edu cing you
a nd you
a re s edu cing me, there
being nothing el s e
to
do), of the pol iticia n a nd his pu bl ic, of
power ( a h, the s edu ction of power a nd the power of s edu c-
tion! ), of the a na l ys t a nd the a na l ys a nd, etc .
The Jes u its were a l rea dy fa mou s for ha ving u s ed s edu ction
in a rel igiou s gu is e, for ha ving retu rned the throngs to the bos -
omof the Ca thol ic chu rch by
the
worl dl y a nd
a es thetic s edu c-
tion of the ba roqu e, a nd ha ving :reca ptu red the cons ciences of
the powerfu l by the expedient of fa ncy goods a nd fa ncy wom-
en . In effect, the Jes u its provide: the firs t modern exa mpl e of
the el a bora tion of a s tra tegy of ma s s des ire a nd a s ocietyof
ma s s
s edu ction
. And they were rel a tivel y s u cces s fu l . It
is
entirel y pos -
s ibl e tha t,
once
the a u s tere cha rms
of
pol itica l economy a nd
produ cer ca pita l is m - ca pita l is m's pu rita n cycl e - ha ve been
s wept a wa y, a ca thol ic a nd Jes u itica l era wil l begin,
with
a s oft
technol ogy of s edu ction a nd a s oft, ros y s emiu rgy.
It is no l onger a ma tter of s edu ction a s pa s s ion, bu t of a de-
ma ndfor s edu ction
.
Of a n invoca tion of des ire a nd
its rea l iz a -
tion in pl a ce of the fa l tering rel a tions of power
a nd knowl edge
tha t inhere in l ove a nd tra ns ference . Wha t
ha ppens
'to
the ma s ter-
s l a ve
dia l ectic when the ma s ter ha s been s edu ced by the s l a ve,
a nd
the
s l a ve by
the ma s ter? Sedu ction becomes no more tha n
a n effu s ion of differences or a dis cu rs ive l ibidina l s triptea s e. With
a va gu e col l u s ion
between
s u ppl y
a nd dema nd, s edu ction be-
comes
nothing more tha n a n excha nge va l u e, s erving the cir-
cu l a tion of excha nges a nd the l u brica tion of s ocia l rel a tions.
Wha t rema ins of the encha ntrrient of tha t l a byrinthine s tru c-
tu re within which one cou l d l os e
ones el f? Wha t
is
l eft of s edu c-
tion's impos tu re? "There is a nother type of viol ence, which ha s
neither its na me nor ou twa rd a ppea ra nce, bu t which is no l es s
da ngerou s .
I
a m s pea king of s edu ction"
( R ol l in) . Tra ditiona l l y,
the s edu cer wa s
a n impos tor who empl oyed s u bterfu ge a nd vil -
l a iny to a chieve his ends - or a t l ea s t who bel ieved he wa s em-
pl oying them. For the other, by a l l owing hers el f to be s edu ced,
THEPOLITICAL DESTINY
OF
SEDUCTION 177
by succumbing to the imposture, often voided it, stripped the
seducer of his control . In effect, he fa lls into his own tra p for
ha ving fa iled to consider seduction's reversible power
.
The following a lwa ys holds: the one who seeks to plea se the
other ha s a lrea dy succumbed to the other's cha rms. On this
ba sis, a n entire religion or culture ca n be orga nized a round re-
la tions of seduction ( a s opposed to rela tions of production)
.
Thus
the Greek
gods
-
seducers /impostors -
used their power
to seduce men, but were seduced in turn, a nd indeed were often
reduced to seducing men, this being their ma in ta sk . Thus they
provided the ima ge of a world order ruled not by la ws, a s in
the Christia n universe or politica l economy, but by a mutua l
seduction tha t ensured the symbolic equilibrium
between gods
a nd men.
Wha t rema ins of this violence tra pped by its own a rtifice?
Tha t universe where gods a nd men sought to plea se
ea ch other
- even
by the violent
seduction of
sa crifice
- ha s
ended
.
As
ha s the secret understa nding of signs a nd a na logies tha t provided
ma gic with its power of encha ntment . And with it, the a ssump-
tion tha t the entire world is susceptible to seduction a nd rever-
sible in signs - not j ust the gods, but ina nima te beings,
things,
a nd the dea d
themselves
who
ha ve a lwa ys ha d to be seduced,
bewitched a nd ca st out with the a id of numerous signs a nd ritu-
a ls, lest they
do
a ny ha rm. Toda y one ha s to work through one's
own mourning, a n individua l a nd eerie ta sk of reorienta tion
a nd redeployment . We
now
live
in
a universe of
forces a nd re-
la tions of force, a universe tha t ha s ma teria lized a s in a void,
a n obj ect of ma stery a nd not seduction. Auniverse of produc-
tion, investments, counter- investments a nd the libera tion of
energies, a universe of the La wa nd obj ective la ws,
a universe
of the ma ster- sla ve dia lectic.
Sexua lity itself a rose within this universe a s one of its obj ec-
tive functions, a nd nowtends to overdetermine a ll the others,
substituting itself
a s
a n a lterna tive fina lity for those tha t a re dis-
a ppea ring or a lrea dy defunct . Everything is sexua lized a nd there-
by a cquires something of a terra in for a dventure a nd
pla y.
Everywhere the id spea ks. Every discourse a ppea r a s a n eter-
na l commenta ry on sex a nd desire. In this sense, one might sa y
tha t they ha ve a ll become discourses of seduction,
discourses
178 SEDUCTION
that r e g i s te r an e xpli ci t de mand for s e ducti on, but a s oft s e duc-
ti on, whos e we ake ne dcondi ti on has be come s ynonymous wi th
s o much e ls e i n thi s s oci e ty - the ambi e nce , the mani pulati on,
the pe r s uas i on, the g r ati fi cati on, the s tr ate g i e s of de s i r e , the mys -
ti que of pe r s onal r e lati ons , the li bi di nal e conomy and i ts
s moothe d ove r r e lati ons of tr ans fe r e nce whi ch r e lays the com-
pe ti ti ve e conomy and
i ts
r e lati ons of
for ce. Thi s s e ducti on,
whi ch pe r me ate s the e nti r e e xpans e of lang uag e , has no mor e
s ubs tance or s e ns e than the powe r that pe r vade s all the i nte r -
s ti ce s of the s oci al ne twor k. Thi s i s whythe y ar e able to com-
bi ne the i r di s cour s e s s o e as i ly
.
The de g e ne r ate d me talang uag e
of
s e ducti on combi ne d wi th the de g e ne r ate d me talang uag e of
poli ti cs i s e ve r ywhe r e ope r ati ve ( or i f one wi ll,, i s abs olute ly
non-ope r ati ve ) . It i s e noug h that the r e be a cons e ns us conce r n-
i ng the mode l of s e ducti on's s i mulati on, the di ffus e s tr e am of
s pe e ch andde s i r e - j us t as the mur ky me talang uag e of par ti ci -
pati on s uffi ce s to s afe g uar d an :appe ar ance of s oci ali ty.
The di s cour s e
of
s i mulati on
i s
not
an
i mpos tur e . It has only
to have s e ducti on act as a s i mulacr um of affe ct, de s i r e , or li bi di -
nal i nve s tme nt, i n a wor ld whe r e the ne e d for the s e i s cr ue lly
fe lt . Howe ve r , j us t as the "r e lati ons of for ce " we r e ne ve r able
to
e xplai n the vi ci s s i tude s
of
powe r i n the panopti c ag e - e x-
ce pt i n Mar xi an i de ali s m - s i mi lar ly s e ducti on, or the r e lati ons
of s e ducti on, cannot account for conte mpor ar y poli ti cal e ve nts .
If e ve r ythi ng i s dr i ve n by s e ducti on, i t would not be
by thi s
s oft s e ducti on, as r e vi s e d by the i de olog y of de s i r e , but by a
de fi ant s e ducti on, a
dual,
antag oni s ti c s e ducti on
wi th the s take s
maxi mi ze d, i ncludi ng thos e that ar e s e cr e t . It wouldnot be by
a g ame s tr ate g y, but by a mythi cal s e ducti on,
not a ps ycholog i -
cal and ope r ati ve s e ducti on, not a cold, mi ni mali s t s e ducti on .
V
SEDUCTIONAS DESTINY
Are we to think that this diffus e s eduction, which is neither
attractive nor dangerous , this s pecter
of s eduction
that haunts
our circuits without s ecrets , our phantas ies without affect, and
our
contact networks
without contacts , that this is its pure form?
As if the modern happening with its participation and expres -
s ivenes s , where the s tage and its magic have dis appeared, would
be the theater's pure
form? Or as if the hypothetical and hyper-
real mode of intervention in reality - in acting pictures , land-
art and body art - where the
object,
frame
and s taging of
illu-
s ions have dis appeared, would be the pure form of painting
and art?
We are living, in effect, amongs t pure forms , in a radical ob-
s cenity, that is
to
s ay, in the
vis ible, undifferentiated obs cenity
of figures that were once s ecret and dis crete . The s ame is true
of the s ocial, which today rules in its
pure -
i
. e . , empty and
obs cene - form. The s ame for s eduction, which in its pres ent
form, having los t its elements
of
ris k,
s us pens e and s orcery, takes
the
form
of a faint, undifferentiated obs cenity.
Shall we refer to Walter Benjamin's geneology
of the
work
of art and its des tiny? At
firs t, the work of art has the s tatus
of a ritual object, related to an ances tral form of cult . Next it
takes on a cultural or aes thetic form in a s ys tem with fewer ob-
ligations ; it s till retains a s ingular character, though the latter
180 SEDUCTION
i s no longer i mmanent to the ri tu al object, bu t trans cendental
and i ndi vi du ali zed . L as tly , the aes theti c form gi ves way to apo-
li ti cal form i n whi ch the
work
of
art
as s u ch
di s appears before
the
i nevi table progres s
of
mechani cal reprodu cti on. If i n the
ri tu al form there are no
ori gi nals (the aes theti c ori gi nali ty of
cu lt objects i s of
li ttle concern i n the s acred), the ori gi nal i s
agai n los t i n the poli ti cal form. There i s only the mu lti pli ca-
ti on of objects ; the poli ti cal formcorres pondi ng to the object's
maxi mu m ci rcu lati on and mi ni mu m i ntens i ty .
Sedu cti on too
wou ld have
had
i ts ri tu al phas e (du el, magi -
cal, agoni s ti c) ; i ts aes theti c phas e (as
reflected i n the "aes theti c
s trategy " of
the s edu cer, whos e domai n approaches that of the
femi ni ne and s exu ali ty , the i roni c and the di aboli c - i t i s
then
that s edu cti on takes on the meani ng i t has for u s : the pos s i bly
accu rs ed di s tracti on of appearances , thei r s trategi es ,
thei r play ) ;
and fi nally i ts "poli ti cal" phas e
(taki ng u p Benjami n's term, here
s omewhat ambi gu ou s ) . In thi s las t phas e the ori gi nal of s edu c-
ti on, i ts ri tu al and aes theti c form, di s appears
i n favou r
of
an
all-ou t venti lati on whereby s edu cti on
becomes 'the i nformal
form ofpoli ti cs , the s caled-down
framework for an elu s i ve po-
li ti cs devoted to
the endles s reprodu cti on of a form wi thou t
content.
(Thi s i nformal form i s i ns eparable from i ts
techni cal
natu re, whi ch i s that of networks - ju s t as the poli ti cal form
of the object i s i ns eparable from the
techni qu es of s eri al
reprodu cti on) . As
wi th
the
object, thi s "poli ti cal" form cor-
res ponds to s edu cti on's maxi mu m
di ffu s i on and mi ni mu m i n-
tens i ty.
Is thi s to be s edu cti on's des ti ny ? Or can we oppos e
thi s i nvolu -
ti onal fate, and lay a
wager
on
s edu cti on as des ti ny ? Produ c-
ti on as
des ti ny , or s edu cti on as des ti ny ? Agai ns t the
deep
s tru ctu res
and thei r tru th, appearances and thei r des ti ny ? Be
that as i t may , we are li vi ng today i n
non-s ens e, and i f s i mu la-
ti on i s i ts
di s enchanted form, s edu cti on i s i ts enchanted form.
Anatomy i s
not des ti ny , nor i s poli ti cs : s edu cti on i s des ti ny .
It i s what remai ns of a magi cal, fatefu l world, a ri s ky ,
verti gi nou s
and predes ti ned world; i t i s
what i s qu i etly effecti ve i n a vi s i -
bly
effi ci ent and s toli d world .
THEPOLITICALDESTINYOFSEDUCTION 181
The world i s naked, the ki ng i s naked, and thi ngs are clear
.
All of producti on, and truth i ts elf, are di rected towards di s -
clos ure,
the
unbearable
"truth"
of
s ex bei ng but the mos t re-
cent cons equence. Lucki ly, at bottom, there i s nothi ng to i t .
And s educti on_ s ti ll holds , i n the face of truth, a mos t s i bylli ne
res pons e,
whi ch
i s that "perhaps we wi s h to uncover the
truth
becaus e i t i s s o di ffi cult to i magi ne i t naked. "
CultureTexts
General Editors

Arthur andMarilouise Kroker

SIEIDUC .TUGII~
Jean Baudrillard
translated by Brian Singer
NOTHING CAN
BE
GREATER THANSEDUCTION
ITSELF,
NOTEVENTHEORDER THAT
DESTROYS IT
"Seduction is
a
theory-fiction
which
resembles
nothing which has preceded
it . It turns manycontemporary discourses inside out, eventhe most radical,
andcould very well challenge all moderntheory, even, indeed, the rules of
theoretical production itself ." Liberation
. . . probably the most influential contemporary media analyst and social
theorist ." NewStatesman
". . . for Baudrillard, is not seduction a newfigure of our freedom?" L'Express
Seduction is Jean
Baudrillard's most provocative book. Here, under the sign of
seduction all of moderntheory is put into question, feminism andpsychoanalysis
most of
all . Seduction speaks of the sudden reversibility in the order of things
wherediscourse is absorbed into its ownsigns without atrace of meaning. In
the sudden
triumph
of
seduction in apocalyptic culture there is also signalled
the end of history .
JeanBaudrillard is lecturer in Sociology, University of Nanterre .
Amonghis works
translated into English are America, Simulations andSimulacra, Forget Foucault,
In the Shadowof the Silent Majorities, andFor aCritique of the Political Economy
of the Sign.
Brian Singer teaches at GlendonCollege, York University, and is the author of
Society, Theory andthe French Revolution (Macmillan/St . Martin's Press, 1986).
Cover : ManRay Femme aux longs cbeveux, 1929 VIS ART
Bookand Cover Design: Marilouise Kroker
Printed
in
Canada
ISBN