Bataille draws a distinction between that which is homogeneous (hence explicable, capable of submission to a scientific knowledge, an order of ordering principles), and that which is heterogeneous, beyond explanation, unyielding to analytical construct. The unconscious in psychology, the sacred in Durkheim, the laborer not at his workplace - all constitute the realm of the heterogeneous. And of course with Bataille, "the heterogeneous world includes everything resulting from unproductive expenditure" (Bataille: 69, emphasis in original).
Recalling The Accursed Share, only in profitless destruction, in removal from the order of things, can man find the original intimacy which everything productive has alienated him from. But now it can never be complete, because it is not man, but an object / victim that man can remove in such way - only the sacrificed can completely achieve that lost intimacy, man can only gain a fleeting, vicarious aspect of it.Moving to a consideration of Fascism, Bataille finds the heterogeneous concentrated in the Leader, in his rise to power, and his link with the people who submit to his authority; this authority rises above any utilitarian basis, an end in itself.
The Homogeneous, the Heterogeneous, the State, The Leader
Returning to homogeneity, once money becomes the foundation of its social aspect, only the owners of the means of production form the homogeneous part of society, specifically the "middle segment" of the capitalist class, the worker being a part of this order only to the extent of his wage generating labor. Outside the factory, the laborer is "free" as far as his relation to the homogeneous ones is concerned. A question that arises is, how does this last achieve significance, how does it feed back into the laborer's alienation while s/he is engaged in labor - does it probe this alienation, reduce it, or change the laborer?
Social homogeneity is precarious and must continually be protected, by a "recourse to imperative elements" (Bataille 1933: 66). The State is an intermediary formation between sovereign agencies that generate (one would presume) these imperative elements and the homogeneous classes. In maintaining social homogeneity (which derives from the homogeneity of the regime of production) through a management of complexity, the State exercises authority [derived from "sovereign agencies" (Bataille 1933: 66)], and adapts through governmental processes to the extent possible.
Yet, all this is in the service of an existence that is not valid in itself, as it is not heterogeneous. These complexities are not to be mistaken for heterogeneity, they are just fissions produced by the action of economic forces. But these forces do refer to a structure of heterogeneity, as does the overall homogeneous structure, which is to be defined only in relation to that which it is not - heterogeneous.
The heterogeneous does not only confound the social, but the scientific as well, being irreducible to specific laws and principles that could cover its complexity. In the context of the individual, it is the unconscious, in the context of religion, it is the sacred (in a limited way), the dirt beyond the profane, and "includes everything resulting from unproductive expenditure". (Bataille 1933: 69, emphasis in original). The precarity of well defined, abstract and neutral homogeneity derives to a great extent from the constant assaults of the violent, excessive and mad - some of the elements of the heterogeneous.
Considering all of these aspects of heterogeneity, Bataille postulates that "fascist leaders are incontestably part of the heterogeneous existence" (Bataille 1933: 70). They are above men, parties and laws. They are the sovereign element that is situated above any utilitarian judgment, embodying unconditional authority (concretely, by suspending any 'parliamentary adaptation', they also perhaps supersede the State which was the earlier mediating element. They constitute the imperative form. They are the ones that finally expel, through 'brilliant, pure, sadism', any "filth" (Bataille 1933: 73) that could still stake claim to being part of the heterogeneous realm. In performing this expulsion, they are now the kings, the "object in which homogeneous society has found its reason for being", even its final solution for removal of complexity and 'cleanliness'. Conversely, these imperative form bearers are tied to the homogeneous, as they cannot maintain heterogeneity in a "free state" (Bataille 1933: 74).
I will stop here and offer some propositions that relate concretely and conceptually to the foregoing considerations of intimacy, heterogeneity, sovereignty and imperative form [I am holding for the moment, the remaining discussion in Bataille 1933, relating to concentration of royal, military and religious domains; integration of hitherto excluded classes through a negation of their own true (heterogeneous but 'filthy'?) nature; inevitable hopelessness of revolutionary movements, etc. I would also request further advice on effervescence during discussion].
Could we say then that the neighbors in Gross were seeking that lost intimacy, and found a sacrificial victim who was defined by their identity as a group (all Jewish)? Did years of coexistence bring the prodigal violence even closer to the intimacy they sought, because something of them (aside from a shared humanity) was a part of that which they destroyed [what of the blood libel legend (Dundes 1991)in this context]?
Was the "institutionalization of resentment" (Gross 2001: 4) a principle of convergence for authority, heterogeneity and the homogeneous?
Considering there was a large scale destruction of Poland's population before the event Gross describes, was there a mimetic aspect to this violence perpetrated on Jewish neighbors? Alternatively, is it possible that Hitler became a royal/god-head like figure, a king whose authority was internalized by the invaded peoples of Poland, and this is what generated a mimesis? Was this one of the "modalities peculiar to the formation of religious and political society"? (Bataille 1933: 64) Taking it further, is it possible that the Jewish people achieved that ultimate removal from the order of things by somehow engineering their own, profitless, destruction at the hands of their Polish neighbors? The heterogeneity of the filthy asserted itself?
1. "The Psychological Structure of Fascism", Georges Bataille, 1933.
2. "Neighbors", Jan Gross, 2001
3. "The Ritual Murder or Blood Libel Legend: A Study of Anti-Semitic Victimization through Projective Inversion", Alan Dundes, 1991 (1989)
Comments