The Resurrection of the Body
AND THE ETHICS OF LIBERATION
If you prefer to listen rather than read here’s my reading of this essay.
Norman O Brown opened the final chapter of Life Against Death (1959) thus;
THE PATH of sublimation, which mankind has religiously followed at least since the foundation of the first cities, is no way out of the human neurosis, but, on the contrary, leads to its aggravation. Psychoanalytical theory and the bitter facts of contemporary history suggest that mankind is reaching the end of this road. Psychoanalytical theory declares that the end of the road is the dominion of death-in-life. History has brought mankind to that pinnacle on which the total obliteration of mankind is at least a practical possibility. At this moment of history the friends of the life instinct must warn that the victory of death is by no means impossible; the malignant death instinct can unleash those hydrogen bombs. For if we discard our fond illusion that the human race has a privileged or providential status in the life of the universe, it seems plain that the malignant death instinct is a built-in guarantee that the human experiment, if it fails to attain its possible perfection, will cancel itself out. But jeremiads are useless unless we can point to a better way. Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression — in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body.
Our Sex Map
The boundaries we draw between what's acceptable, and what's not, are arbitrary.
Nipples, genitals, pubes, women's faces, hair, heavy petting, heterosexual intercourse, same-sex intercourse, female ejaculation, anal sex and flaunting your ankles are okay or not okay depending on where and when you live.
In the early 1980s when I was a teenager, a couple of my teachers had affairs with seventeen old pupils. Back then, there were no consequences for the teachers or their careers. Now it might well result in prison.
Today, the legal age of consent in Nigeria is eleven. Whereas the legal age of consent in Bahrain is twenty-one. From 1275 to 1875 the UK’s age of consent was twelve. In 1875 it was raised to thirteen. And finally in 1885 it was set at sixteen.
It’s undeniable that our collective sexual boundaries vary over time and space. Even so, something in us wants to push back against the idea that these boundaries are arbitrary. Does any reader believe that eleven is the right age for legal consent? Or that twenty-one is?
Viewed from our present place. And our present moment. Our collective sexual boundaries don’t feel as if they’re set by a capricious power. To the ‘right-minded’ they feel universally appropriate and healthy.
I say ‘arbitrary’ then, as a provocation.
As a way to dig into the feelings of revulsion that mark transgression. And - of at least equal importance - as a way to empathise with the Discontents. With those of us whose private sexual boundaries do not match the collective ones.
Our Money Map
In a similar vein, I want to suggest our collective moral boundaries around money are arbitrary, too.
In a sense it seems prosaic to consider how we are with money. What insights could it possibly offer? Money is so deeply embedded with everyday life that our behaviour around it can seem as natural as breathing. Its boundaries as real as the physical limitations of our bodies.
But it's useful to take stock. To map out those behaviours and boundaries. To maybe think of them as vectors through which we - as nodes - transmit our needs and desires into the world. And to remind ourselves that those vectors are formative of money as it exists in social reality.
Most obviously then, we earn money. Of course, not every way of earning money is legal and many more are considered 'immoral'. We can spend money. Although again there are legal limits to this. And moral censure often awaits signs of profligacy. As ridicule awaits the miser.
Our two most virtuous money behaviours are saving it and giving it away. There is a strange twist in how each is judged, though. Moral approval for saving is proportional to income. The less we have the more worthy our efforts. Whereas moral approval for a donation is based on its absolute value. The billionaire who gives a million is lauded above the poor man who gives a much greater proportion of his wealth.
We can also invest money hoping for a return. Historically the idea of earning interest has been problematic, though. Theologians declared that ‘money begetting money’ was unnatural. And so they forbade it. Nowadays that’s changed. In fact, investment commands a moral cachet. Politicians love to talk about it.
We can gamble too. Albeit with restrictions. There are some troublemakers - like me - who insist that investment and gambling are fundamentally the same game. This is discomforting. Because it suggests that the legal, moral and cultural boundaries that distinguish investment from gambling are indeed arbitrary.
A clear cut moral boundary does exist, though. We must do all we can to avoid wasting money. Reckless losses in pursuit of gain can be redeemed only through an ongoing commitment to prudence. The value of money must be demonstrably enacted and revered.
So the Point Zero boundary from which all other sins against money can be measured. Which provokes disgust and revulsion upon its transgression. Is the destruction of money. Is its conscious, deliberate, pure and purposeless waste. So unconscionable is the spectre of this that no laws exist in the UK forbidding it. And even where such laws do exist they have rarely if ever been tested.
This, of course, is precisely the territory of Church of Burn. We are a node by which a desire for the active renunciation of money is transmitted through the vector of its destruction.
Praxis is the Primary Site of Revelation
If you’ve come to this essay cold. Or, if you're here not knowing much about Church of Burn. The previous section's last sentences and the photographs will demand some explanation. This essay as a whole should provide context. What you need to know for now is that Church of Burn is based around a Ritual Sacrifice. Members of our congregation burn some of their money at our Altar. The most burned at any single event is just under £1000. Immediately preceding the Ritual we hold a Service. This concludes with a piece of performance art that is sexually explicit. I use the words ‘Service’ and ‘Ritual’ in earnest. But Church of Burn is neither Christian nor based in any traditional religion.
I was once asked at an academic conference, ‘What does it feel like to burn money?’ This is a question easily answered. But in action, not words.
Our starting point then, is this. The value and meaning of action is accessible primarily through our experience of it. Or, put more succinctly. Praxis is the primary site of revelation.
The power of praxis underpins Church of Burn’s mission. We want ‘to change money by changing our relationship to money’. Our belief is that transgressive action is necessary. And it will be axiomatic to any change in our consciousness of money.
Before we talk money though, let’s talk sex.