Order the latest print issue here
All print issues here
asylummagazine@protonmail.com
MAKE POLITICS KINKY AGAIN
Mary Harrington
If the Savoyard reactionary Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) were writing today, he would be swiftly cancelled. Not for his full-throated defence of throne and altar, or even his theory of humans’ natural bloodthirstiness. But for sexism.
In an 1802 letter to his daughter Adèle, de Maistre advised her to make an effort to be more submissive: “To overcome oneself, to submit to circumstances, is a duty for everyone, but especially for women.” It’s perfect fodder for an internet pile-on, of the kind that would end up distilled to “Horrible misogynist thinks women should be doormats”. If we read on, though, we find his advice is not aimed at subordinating his daughter at all. On the contrary: it offers pragmatic advice on how to get the best out of men, as a woman:
A man, my dear child, is an animal. Unfortunately for your sex, extremely proud; but happily for this same sex, extremely foolish. It is necessary to use his foolishness against his pride. In ceding skilfully and with grace, it is necessary to make him believe that he will always be king. Then he is content to allow himself to be led. As soon as a woman cedes the sceptre, it is given back to her immediately.
Happy are mild women, for they will possess men. Submit therefore, my dear Adèle; submit, caress, insinuate yourself; you will soon find some imbecile full of wit who will say in his heart: ‘Here is the one I need.’ If after you have wed he comes to discover that you are a bit impertinent, the evil is not great.
Very clearly, de Maistre’s advice to his daughter isn’t intended to teach her to disregard her own interests. Rather, it’s aimed at teaching her a truth now ruthlessly suppressed within the progressive frame: that power also has a via negativa. Especially for a woman, he advises, pliancy correctly wielded can be more persuasive than force.
Of course this reading would not save de Maistre from cancellation today, for the dynamic he describes violates three sacred modern dogmas. Firstly, the belief that men and women are functionally interchangeable: that there are no meaningful differences between the sexes save some trivial differences of genital topography, that are in any case optional now, thanks to modern surgical practices. Secondly, that overt power asymmetries are oppressive by definition: instances of pervasive “systems of domination”, that must be dismantled for social justice to reign. And, thirdly, the therapeutic dictum that interpersonal dynamics are only “healthy” to the extent that they’re explicit and universally agreed-upon.
Off the record, a great many happily married men and women will tell you that in practice their marriage works along the lines de Maistre describes to his daughter. In the progressive world as it should be, though, this dynamic cannot be anything but malign. All relationships should represent a perfect balance of roles and power, between two individuals who could be of either sex without the dynamic being affected. It is forbidden to imply that there is anything distinct about the way men and women typically think or act. And it is further forbidden to leave any part of one’s interpersonal relationships unstated: everything must be “negotiated”, ultimately egalitarian, and explicitly consensual, or it’s abuse.
In turn this sheds light on the huge and growing popularity of “BDSM” – and the fact that this is most pronounced among progressives. It’s reliably the case that every moral taboo produces an equal and opposite sexual kink, and thus it’s unsurprising to find that a recent Kinsey Institute study shows Right-wingers fantasise sexually about breaching conservative taboos around sexual modesty and partner monogamy, while Left-wingers fantasise sexually about domination and submission. Very simply: as the progressive war on all forms of hierarchy has become the default public morality, practices that eroticise that forbidden arrangement have gone from subcultural to mainstream.
Properly understood, though, BDSM practices function less as genuine subversion of the liberal taboo on power asymmetry than as its confirmation. Not only does erotic “power exchange” relegate asymmetric authority safely to the contained zone of sexual “play”, it also subordinates it to the liberal paradigm of “negotiation”, optionality, and contract. The concept of the “safe word” reproduces, in erotic contexts generally already ruled by the hookup-culture paradigm of total sexual liquefaction, the central premise underlying liberal modernity: the notion that society is a “contract” in which authority is only granted provisionally, and may be revoked at any time should the terms be breached.
In theory, then, when practiced according to official injunctions to be “safe, sane and consensual”, BDSM does not signal hierarchy’s survival under liquid modernity. It signals its absorption by the grey goo of compulsory transparency and egalitarianism. But beneath this weight of erotic managerialism lurks something less congenial to the grey-goo paradigm: the spectre of innate differences.
For the sake of brevity, let us leave aside the question of whether, as de Maistre advised his daughter, some common differences of temperament and disposition map onto sex differences. Let us focus instead on an important but relatively under-examined premise underpinning BDSM practices as such: that people like what they like, including sometimes either to dominate or to be dominated. This is, by common consent, exempted from the is/ought confusion that governs questions of power within the larger liberal framework. Sexual preferences just are, and it is forbidden to yuck someone’s yum. If you, a liberal otherwise in good standing, enjoy erotic domination, then provided you’re otherwise dismantling “systems of domination” and it’s all “safe, sane, and consensual”, who am I to criticise?
But if we accept, in principle, that BDSM serves as a safety-valve for the dangerous allure of power asymmetry within the contractual liberal paradigm, it’s plausible that these pre-existing differences of disposition obtain more broadly too. If a preference for domination or submission just is, in a BDSM context, this may also be the case beyond that context. More plainly: it’s possible that even outside the carefully ringfenced zone of heavily pre-negotiated sex LARPing, some individuals may be more naturally disposed than others not to be leaders, but to be led. This is perhaps the most taboo possibility of all: so much so that the founding constitution of the modern world’s only superpower explicitly disavows it. But what if, in fact, all men are not created equal? What if some individuals genuinely prefer, outside as well as inside the BDSM safety-zone, to accept authority rather than to seek it?
If we accept this premise, a whole forbidden domain of ethics opens up, within which the progressive worldview looks not just mistaken but profoundly abusive and cruel. Take, for example, the implicit but pervasive stigmatisation of those who show little interest in “leadership” or ambitious effort, preferring to lead quieter lives ideally with wise guidance from someone wielding just authority. Within the BDSM safety-zone, there is no shame in being a bottom. Why should this be shameful outside that zone? And yet it is, greatly to the detriment of all such gentle individuals, whom liberal egalitarianism tacitly treats as fools who may be brutalised or exploited at will.
Similarly, should the central fact of irreducible human differences in relation to authority hold beyond, as well as within, the BDSM safety-zone, it follows that “systems of domination” are not unjust impositions, but irreducible aspects of our rich human diversity. As such, trying to dismantle them will be futile. Not only this, but such efforts will work actively against the interests of those who prefer to be led, as the result will not be universal egalitarianism but the same old power dynamics as ever, just mystified and stripped of the ethical constraints proper to just exercise of authority.
And, again, we can learn from long-term BDSM practitioners about what that just exercise implies. Such practitioners will tell you (usually in much more detail than you would prefer) that done properly, “power exchange” is less tyranny than subtle dialectic: that while authority rests with one side only, when combined with mutual affection and long-term commitment the result is not oppression but a careful, attuned commitment to exercising that authority on both parties’ behalf, in the interests of common pleasure. Their counterparts will tell you, in turn, that de Maistre’s advice is correct: in this dynamic, the moment you cede the sceptre it is immediately given back.
The most provocative implications of this hypothetical analogy, of course, concern the dogmas of consent, and of compulsory transparency. Joseph de Maistre himself argued that notwithstanding what the liberal philosophes might claim about the existence of a “social contract” underlying political legitimacy, in reality this is a “chimera”. Far from choosing their leaders, “the people will always accept their masters, and never choose them”. It would surely be as taboo to suggest power exchange might be sexier without safe words, as to suggest authority left un-written, without checks and balances, might be a meaningful political way forward.
But if we accept the possibility of natural, dispositional differences, efforts to dismantle “systems of domination” will run profoundly counter to the interests of those who prefer being led. Indeed, these interests will be better served by all, top and bottom alike, embracing a more positive relation to authority: one in which its interpersonal operations are governed not by defensive fear, ambivalence, proceduralism, or self-interest, but affection, commitment, and mutual dependence. If the real tyrants’ charter was the ideology of compulsory egalitarianism all along, then the path to true liberty must abandon safe-words, and make politics kinky again.
If the Savoyard reactionary Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) were writing today, he would be swiftly cancelled. Not for his full-throated defence of throne and altar, or even his theory of humans’ natural bloodthirstiness. But for sexism.
In an 1802 letter to his daughter Adèle, de Maistre advised her to make an effort to be more submissive: “To overcome oneself, to submit to circumstances, is a duty for everyone, but especially for women.” It’s perfect fodder for an internet pile-on, of the kind that would end up distilled to “Horrible misogynist thinks women should be doormats”. If we read on, though, we find his advice is not aimed at subordinating his daughter at all. On the contrary: it offers pragmatic advice on how to get the best out of men, as a woman:
A man, my dear child, is an animal. Unfortunately for your sex, extremely proud; but happily for this same sex, extremely foolish. It is necessary to use his foolishness against his pride. In ceding skilfully and with grace, it is necessary to make him believe that he will always be king. Then he is content to allow himself to be led. As soon as a woman cedes the sceptre, it is given back to her immediately.
Happy are mild women, for they will possess men. Submit therefore, my dear Adèle; submit, caress, insinuate yourself; you will soon find some imbecile full of wit who will say in his heart: ‘Here is the one I need.’ If after you have wed he comes to discover that you are a bit impertinent, the evil is not great.
Very clearly, de Maistre’s advice to his daughter isn’t intended to teach her to disregard her own interests. Rather, it’s aimed at teaching her a truth now ruthlessly suppressed within the progressive frame: that power also has a via negativa. Especially for a woman, he advises, pliancy correctly wielded can be more persuasive than force.
Of course this reading would not save de Maistre from cancellation today, for the dynamic he describes violates three sacred modern dogmas. Firstly, the belief that men and women are functionally interchangeable: that there are no meaningful differences between the sexes save some trivial differences of genital topography, that are in any case optional now, thanks to modern surgical practices. Secondly, that overt power asymmetries are oppressive by definition: instances of pervasive “systems of domination”, that must be dismantled for social justice to reign. And, thirdly, the therapeutic dictum that interpersonal dynamics are only “healthy” to the extent that they’re explicit and universally agreed-upon.
Off the record, a great many happily married men and women will tell you that in practice their marriage works along the lines de Maistre describes to his daughter. In the progressive world as it should be, though, this dynamic cannot be anything but malign. All relationships should represent a perfect balance of roles and power, between two individuals who could be of either sex without the dynamic being affected. It is forbidden to imply that there is anything distinct about the way men and women typically think or act. And it is further forbidden to leave any part of one’s interpersonal relationships unstated: everything must be “negotiated”, ultimately egalitarian, and explicitly consensual, or it’s abuse.
In turn this sheds light on the huge and growing popularity of “BDSM” – and the fact that this is most pronounced among progressives. It’s reliably the case that every moral taboo produces an equal and opposite sexual kink, and thus it’s unsurprising to find that a recent Kinsey Institute study shows Right-wingers fantasise sexually about breaching conservative taboos around sexual modesty and partner monogamy, while Left-wingers fantasise sexually about domination and submission. Very simply: as the progressive war on all forms of hierarchy has become the default public morality, practices that eroticise that forbidden arrangement have gone from subcultural to mainstream.
Properly understood, though, BDSM practices function less as genuine subversion of the liberal taboo on power asymmetry than as its confirmation. Not only does erotic “power exchange” relegate asymmetric authority safely to the contained zone of sexual “play”, it also subordinates it to the liberal paradigm of “negotiation”, optionality, and contract. The concept of the “safe word” reproduces, in erotic contexts generally already ruled by the hookup-culture paradigm of total sexual liquefaction, the central premise underlying liberal modernity: the notion that society is a “contract” in which authority is only granted provisionally, and may be revoked at any time should the terms be breached.
In theory, then, when practiced according to official injunctions to be “safe, sane and consensual”, BDSM does not signal hierarchy’s survival under liquid modernity. It signals its absorption by the grey goo of compulsory transparency and egalitarianism. But beneath this weight of erotic managerialism lurks something less congenial to the grey-goo paradigm: the spectre of innate differences.
For the sake of brevity, let us leave aside the question of whether, as de Maistre advised his daughter, some common differences of temperament and disposition map onto sex differences. Let us focus instead on an important but relatively under-examined premise underpinning BDSM practices as such: that people like what they like, including sometimes either to dominate or to be dominated. This is, by common consent, exempted from the is/ought confusion that governs questions of power within the larger liberal framework. Sexual preferences just are, and it is forbidden to yuck someone’s yum. If you, a liberal otherwise in good standing, enjoy erotic domination, then provided you’re otherwise dismantling “systems of domination” and it’s all “safe, sane, and consensual”, who am I to criticise?
But if we accept, in principle, that BDSM serves as a safety-valve for the dangerous allure of power asymmetry within the contractual liberal paradigm, it’s plausible that these pre-existing differences of disposition obtain more broadly too. If a preference for domination or submission just is, in a BDSM context, this may also be the case beyond that context. More plainly: it’s possible that even outside the carefully ringfenced zone of heavily pre-negotiated sex LARPing, some individuals may be more naturally disposed than others not to be leaders, but to be led. This is perhaps the most taboo possibility of all: so much so that the founding constitution of the modern world’s only superpower explicitly disavows it. But what if, in fact, all men are not created equal? What if some individuals genuinely prefer, outside as well as inside the BDSM safety-zone, to accept authority rather than to seek it?
If we accept this premise, a whole forbidden domain of ethics opens up, within which the progressive worldview looks not just mistaken but profoundly abusive and cruel. Take, for example, the implicit but pervasive stigmatisation of those who show little interest in “leadership” or ambitious effort, preferring to lead quieter lives ideally with wise guidance from someone wielding just authority. Within the BDSM safety-zone, there is no shame in being a bottom. Why should this be shameful outside that zone? And yet it is, greatly to the detriment of all such gentle individuals, whom liberal egalitarianism tacitly treats as fools who may be brutalised or exploited at will.
Similarly, should the central fact of irreducible human differences in relation to authority hold beyond, as well as within, the BDSM safety-zone, it follows that “systems of domination” are not unjust impositions, but irreducible aspects of our rich human diversity. As such, trying to dismantle them will be futile. Not only this, but such efforts will work actively against the interests of those who prefer to be led, as the result will not be universal egalitarianism but the same old power dynamics as ever, just mystified and stripped of the ethical constraints proper to just exercise of authority.
And, again, we can learn from long-term BDSM practitioners about what that just exercise implies. Such practitioners will tell you (usually in much more detail than you would prefer) that done properly, “power exchange” is less tyranny than subtle dialectic: that while authority rests with one side only, when combined with mutual affection and long-term commitment the result is not oppression but a careful, attuned commitment to exercising that authority on both parties’ behalf, in the interests of common pleasure. Their counterparts will tell you, in turn, that de Maistre’s advice is correct: in this dynamic, the moment you cede the sceptre it is immediately given back.
The most provocative implications of this hypothetical analogy, of course, concern the dogmas of consent, and of compulsory transparency. Joseph de Maistre himself argued that notwithstanding what the liberal philosophes might claim about the existence of a “social contract” underlying political legitimacy, in reality this is a “chimera”. Far from choosing their leaders, “the people will always accept their masters, and never choose them”. It would surely be as taboo to suggest power exchange might be sexier without safe words, as to suggest authority left un-written, without checks and balances, might be a meaningful political way forward.
But if we accept the possibility of natural, dispositional differences, efforts to dismantle “systems of domination” will run profoundly counter to the interests of those who prefer being led. Indeed, these interests will be better served by all, top and bottom alike, embracing a more positive relation to authority: one in which its interpersonal operations are governed not by defensive fear, ambivalence, proceduralism, or self-interest, but affection, commitment, and mutual dependence. If the real tyrants’ charter was the ideology of compulsory egalitarianism all along, then the path to true liberty must abandon safe-words, and make politics kinky again.
BUY VOLUME II ISSUE VI
ORDER HERE