Bataille

Thus at the present stage of development the automatic rectitude of a soldier in uniform, maneuvering according to orders, emerges from the immense confusion of the animal world and proposes itself to the universe of astronomy as its' highest achievement. If, on the other hand, this mathematical military truth is contrasted with the excremental orifice of the ape, which seems to be its inevitable compensation, the universe that seemed menaced by human splendor in a pitifully imperative form receives no other response than the unintelligible discharge of a burst of laughter...

This passage was a great example of why I have a hard time with Bataille, and really most "scholarly" "philosophical" essays. It's both my example of something I agree with and something outrageous, so I'll start with why I agree.

It seems to me that Bataille's point is largely that the origin stories or mythos that humans create for themselves is mostly self-flattering bunk meant to either enslave the proletariat to a higher power, or give us a false sense of superiority over the rest of life on Earth. And here he finally gets to the crux of it. Bataille prefaces this point with the little girl who has a bit of a crisis over a monkey taking a crap in front of her and has some kind of awakening of her own because of it. The anecdote gives us a demonstration of the superior "man" being disrupted, and strangely enlightened by the base vulgarity of an inferior life form. By comparing the conquering of our animal instincts on the battlefield to the shit-epiphany of this little girl I think he makes a strange, if compelling argument to the futility of our superiority complex. The soldier in battle is a whole section of our collective myth, made an emblem of bravery, control, and strength. Bataille argues that this myth is nothing but a varnish over a much more powerful force that ties us to the other life on Earth we so seek to distance ourselves from.

While I see what he's saying and think the argument he's making is a valid one, the way he goes about arguing it is infuriating. My problem is not the vulgar, visceral, orgasmic language, but the meandering pointlessness of that language. Bataille makes the mistake it seems so many cultural writers make of writing from within the fury of their own imagination. We are left on the outside as Bataille digresses into orgy and sacrifice, leaving threads flapping in his wake. The anal digression that prefaces this quote has some bearing on the point he finally makes, but he still manages to bungle his translation of thought to words. "...contrasted with the excremental orifice of the ape, which seems to be its inevitable compensation..." What is inevitable about that contrast? It may be self evident to Bataille, but by no means has he delivered me to the same conclusion. And yet he merely casts it offhand, assured of his own correctness by the echo-chamber of his brain. Bataille's ideas are compelling, and his language evocative, but his vacuous pontificating is frustrating at best.