Conflict in the Philosophy of Georges Bataille

Kornishov Vasiliy Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0000-0002-2754-824X student, Faculty of Conflict Studies, Saint Petersburg University of the Humanities and Social Sciences 192238, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Fuchika str., 15 kornish.basil@gmail.com

Egorov Pavel Aleksandrovich senior lecturer, magister of Conflict Studies, Department of Conflict Studies, Saint Petersburg University of the Humanities and Social Sciences 192238, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Fuchika str., 15 conflictologegorov@gmail.com

Introduction

Conflict is an inevitable component of any society. At the same time, conflictology, which studies conflicts, has appeared recently. In this regard, within the framework of conflictological discourse, many concepts of conflict have not been sufficiently studied or even considered. For example, from the point of view of modern conflictology, conflict is most often understood as the interaction of opposing parties or an imbalance of relationships within the system ^{[17, p. 130,136]}. This definition focuses on the disharmony created by conflict, which is why attempts to study and manage such phenomena will be associated with this aspect. Georges Bataille is a well-known French philosopher of the XX century, who studied a variety of issues: religions of archaic societies, eroticism, the role of spending in society, etc. Although he does not consider conflict in his philosophy in a direct way, his ideas trace an indirect consideration of this phenomenon. During his lifetime, Georges Bataille explored a number of topics that are relevant in the discourse of modern conflictology: power, the course of wars, violence in various cultures, forms of social prohibitions. However, considering these phenomena, the philosopher does not focus on the contradictions that arise between the parties. Instead, he describes human activity through the process of accumulation and expenditure of energy, pointing out the importance of the sensation that accompanies the individual during this process. This interpretation allows us to talk about the relevance of the consideration of the conflict in the philosophy of Georges Bataille, as it allows us to see the features of this phenomenon, which could not be noticeable when emphasizing the role of inconsistency between the parties. Modern conflictological discourse, most often, is fixed on contradiction as the main category of conflict interaction. At the same time, a contradiction, such as a clash of interests, inconsistency of attitudes or different attitudes towards the object of the conflict, is a difficult category to analyze in situations where the parties are not aware of their interests, or the object of the conflict, for some reason, is not obvious. The possibility of Georges Bataille's philosophy to give a key to understanding conflict processes outside the field of the concept of contradiction can enrich the analytical apparatus of conflictology, make it more flexible and effective in relation to the above situations.

The methodology of this study is based on a conceptual analysis, which is necessary to identify the essence and features of the conflict when considering the works of Georges Bataille and materials studying his philosophy. This is explained by the fact that this social phenomenon has not received significant conceptualization within the framework of Bataev's philosophy. Another significant method of research can be called hermeneutic analysis, which is necessary to reveal the metaphorical images that the philosopher uses to describe his ideas, and to find in them a connection with the essence of the conflict.

The essence of spending in the philosophy of Georges Bataille

To begin with, it is worth noting that the idea of wasting energy is an extremely important concept created by Georges Bataille. The philosopher believed that any being requires energy to ensure its own activity. As energy is received from the surrounding world, it accumulates, resulting in an excess of it. The accumulation of energy will always generate an excess, since living beings cannot give more or as much energy to the surrounding world as they receive from it ^{[7, p. 121]}. Georges Bataille illustrates this situation through the image of the sun: it constantly gives its own energy, supporting life on Earth, but people are not able to interact with the luminary and give him anything ^{[11, p. 134]}. Excess allows us to develop, evolving and capturing new territories ^{[7, p. 122]}. At the same time, expansion is inevitable, since energy production is inevitable. However, any expansion must face growth constraints and the inability to continue due to limited territory and development paths. In such cases, the creature is faced with the need to spend energy. An attempt to save further, avoiding spending, will return the whole process to the need for expansion, which, while maintaining the impossibility of this, will return again to the need for spending ^{[7, p. 125]}. At the same time, the larger the excess that does not allow expansion, the more difficult it is to hold it and the more powerful the energy splash will be ^{[1, p. 103]}. An interesting example is given by the philosopher to illustrate the process of spending. When people want to watch a bullfight, they try to take all possible spectator seats. After all the places become occupied, people try to expand the number of such places, using objects of the surrounding world for this purpose, such as lanterns or fences. However, at some point the place ends, which leads to scuffles at the entrance or in other places where you can watch the event. As a result of such fights, someone may die or not be able to do something ^{[7, p. 124]}. The number of people who contain the energy stored for viewing is spent by the people themselves to be able to accommodate everyone. This example is important because in it Georges Bataille mentions the conflict inherent in the expansion process: conflict is what precedes spending and introduces people to this very spending.

Ways of spending

At the same time, the expenditure itself can be carried out in different ways. The philosopher mentions mutual devouring, death and sexual reproduction as ways of spending surplus ^{[7, pp. 126-127]}. This makes us pay attention to another idea considered in Georges Bataille's philosophy – the idea of immanence. Within this state, a living being is not separable from the world: it does not feel time, it cannot be an object or a subject. Georges Bataille compares such a state with "water in water" ^{[7, p. 56]} due to the fundamental indistinguishability of the immanent state, its "non-materiality". All three of the above methods of spending are immanent states: although due to the awareness of one's own finiteness, a person is usually not in immanence ^{[8, p. 300]}, according to Georges Bataille, it is these processes that make it possible to approach it. At the same time, it is the conflict that puts people in this very state. When a crowd of people starts fighting for a place to see a bullfight, someone dies and goes into a state of immanence through death. And someone, being in a state of passion, clings to the enemy, because of which both of them become like two mutually devouring creatures (at the same time, both of them discard a certain sense of self, intertwine in conflict).

Thus, it can be said that, from the point of view of Georges Bataille, a conflict is a mobilization to spend, returning fully or partially people to a state close to immanence. This definition can be blamed for the fact that in the philosopher's example under consideration, people were in a state of passion, which is not typical for all conflict interactions. The disharmony or confrontation mentioned earlier do not imply the obligation of this state. However, it can be noted here that during the conflict, people will not question the conflict process itself until the expenditure is sufficient. The idea of ending the conflict will arise only when enough energy is spent. Until that happens, the parties will continue to spend. This can be seen in the example of the conflict between the Montague and Capulet families in Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet.

At the beginning of the work, a long conflict occurs between the families, the completion of which neither side thinks about ^{[21, p. 13]}. The fact that the subject of the conflict remains unknown more clearly demonstrates the immanence of this situation: it is perceived as an incomprehensible reality. During the conflict, an act of spending is performed on the part of both families. For example, in the work we see the death of Tybalt, Juliet's cousin, and Mercutio, a close friend of Romeo. However, within the framework of such enmity, their death does not become a reason to end it ^{[21, pp. 70-72]}. Families that constantly strive to devour each other do not perceive the waste of individuals who die in battle as sufficient. Unlike the two above-mentioned characters, Romeo and Juliet die in a different way, not in the logic of the conflict between childbirth. They move away from the conflict, because this conflict prevents them from being together, and death is carried out not within the framework of mutual hatred, but love. This allows us to say that this event is carried out as part of a different way of spending. At the same time, the fact of the end of the conflict, following the death of the main characters, shows that the expenditure becomes sufficient to end the conflict.

Considering this conflict, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the methods of spending indicated by the philosopher are combined. This forces us to consider in more detail the role of these methods in order to better understand their specifics of implementation within the framework of conflict interaction.

Mutual devouring and death: their relationship in conflict

Since the analysis of the conflict between the Montague and Capulet families paid considerable attention to the processes of mutual devouring and death, the disclosure of specifics should begin with them. Although the act of mutual devouring can lead to the death of the creatures taking part in this process, death as a way of spending is different from mutual devouring. For Georges Bataille, death is associated with the realization that before implementing this method of spending, those who implement it clearly understand that what will be spent will disappear forever ^{[7, p. 126]}. In the case of mutual devouring, death is not something mandatory: it is much more important to carry out an attack than the death of the one being grabbed. This gives grounds to interpret Georges Bataille in such a way that mutual devouring is characteristic of animals, while death is characteristic of people who have gone beyond immanence and are aware of themselves and their mortality. However, the conflict between the Montague and Capulet families allows us to refute this interpretation. Within the framework of this conflict, the death of people belonging to a particular family and dying because of enmity does not lead to completion. This also confirms that within the framework of the confrontation of families, the death of one or another of its representatives is not some kind of systematic phenomenon, even this condition does not contribute to the de-escalation of the confrontation. Mutual hatred plays a bigger role in their life in general than death. Awareness of the loss of a person is blocked by rejection of the other side of the conflict, which is why the dislike passes to the reproduction of dislike in the future. Death here is just another round of escalation of the conflict, just as a new bite continues to devour.

A similar thing is present in the case of a fight about a place near a bullfight. The process of exchanging blows, accompanied by aggression against each other, excludes death for the conflicting parties during this process. At the same time, the result of their confrontation may not be death. But the waste of energy in the process of mutual destruction will still be committed.

However, as noted earlier, death as a way of spending is always associated with loss. This loss can be perceived as the termination of one's own existence when an individual is aware of the limitation of his own life ^{[9, p. 277]}, the threat of this termination due to pain and damage ^{[10, p. 380]}, or as the destruction of another object, when from the observer's position one can see the interruption of the functioning of something ^{[4, p. 69-70]}. At the same time, the philosopher notes that the feeling of loss is similar to the feeling that arises before the appearance of desire ^{[6, p. 88]}. Since people are torn out of immanence, the distinction between life and death will always be present in their worldview. As a result of mutual devouring, loss is formed. A sufficiently large loss will complete the process of mutual devouring, as it will deprive you of the need to spend energy further. It is in this context that death and mutual devouring as ways of spending are closely intertwined in the conflict.

This is what can be seen in the death of Romeo and Juliet. Their death is a waste that did not obey the logic of mutual devouring by each other's families. This makes this event unique within the framework of the example under consideration. That is why it can enter into a new state, pushing the warring parties with loss, not as a round of escalation of mutual devouring, which is why the conflict ends. This makes this expenditure sufficient. In the case of a fight for a place to watch a bullfight, as a result, there will also be a loss: the death of someone from the fighting or damage to the body or things that can cause this experience and include death in the conflict process as a way of spending.

These examples show that mutual devouring and death together cause the conflict to proceed: the former is associated with the continuation of spending, while the latter completes this process, giving the subject the realization that the amount of energy has been spent enough. Having considered these two ways of spending, it remains to analyze one more, the last one, namely sexual reproduction.

Sexual reproduction and the role of eroticism

Sexual reproduction is understood as the interaction between beings in order to generate new individuals ^{[7, p. 126]}. Coitus is the most difficult to analyze within the framework of considering the concept of conflict in the philosophy of Georges Bataille. Neither in the conflict between Montague and Capulet, nor in the fight for a place at the bullfight, this process is not present, which makes it possible to doubt any role of the designated method of spending within the framework of Georges Bataille's understanding of the conflict.

However, this explanation can be challenged from the point of view of psychology and especially psychoanalysis. Within the framework of this tradition, the desire for coitus can be repressed and sublimated, which is why it will manifest itself in activity. Thus, in the case of Sigmund Freud, in the case of the "rat-man", it was noted that the idea of disobeying the ban in the analysant was associated with an increase in erotic desire ^{[20, p. 70]}. However, for Sigmund Freud himself, desire is a mixture of attraction to life and death, which is why any desire, including of an erotic nature, is closely connected with death ^{[19, pp. 288-289]}. Within the framework of the Lacanian interpretation of psychoanalysis, sex is opposed to sexuality, since any idea related to sexual interaction will be in reality, where there is no sex ^{[14, pp. 50-51]}. In the philosophy of Georges Bataille, a similar thought can be noted, including due to acquaintance with the works of Sigmund Freud.  The fact is that for a philosopher, coitus is within the framework of coitus itself. The eroticism associated with it is a completely different experience ^{[13, p. 133]}. According to the thinker, eroticism poses the question of being for the subject ^{[7, p. 508]}, which closely connects it with death, since the question of being presupposes a division into life and death, and this is what allows eroticism to be an unrestrained and mobilizing experience ^{[12, p.130-131]}. At the same time, unlike psychoanalysis, Georges Bataille has no hidden meanings in the erotic that can be discovered, there is only an attitude to life and death ^{[2, p. 6]}.

Although the function of reproduction can be distinguished in eroticism, due to the specifics of the relationship between the subject and the idea of death, it is not sexual reproduction in the sense in which this process occurs in animals ^{[15, p. 210]}. In addition, the philosopher points out that the phenomenon in question arises when prohibitions appear that restrict the sexual life of people ^{[5, p. 19]} and have a connection with death ^{[7, p. 512]}. This allows us to conclude that in the conflict, from the point of view of Georges Bataille, coitus as a way of spending does not play any mandatory role for the functioning of this process. The process of reproduction of new individuals, as a rule, is generally not characteristic of conflicts and, as noted earlier, is not present in the examples under consideration, and the expression of this process in the form of an idea or desire will be in the sphere of eroticism. At the same time, eroticism itself is closely connected with overcoming these prohibitions in an act that erases the difference between a person with restrictions and an animal who has no prohibitions, since their occurrence is associated with distancing from the animal's condition ^{[18, p. 25]}. Since many prohibitions are associated with aggression and violence, we can say that the conflict is eroticized. This may also confirm that for a philosopher one of the functions of prohibition is to maintain social unity ^{[16, p. 113]}, while conflict, as noted at the beginning, is perceived as social disharmony. From the above, it can be concluded that the role of death as a way of spending in conflict becomes more significant, and the approach to immanence is carried out not only through the inner experience of experiencing loss, but also through the erotic experience of overcoming any prohibition.

Conclusion

Summing up, we can say that Georges Bataille gives a unique interpretation of the conflict, focusing on the need for spending to manage and resolve this method of social interaction. At the same time, such waste is organized through a combination of mutual devouring and death, which cause escalation and de-escalation of the conflict, respectively. There is another important point. For many authors analyzing the conflict, the central point was the presence of a contradiction: for example, the question of the possession of surplus value by Karl Marx or the system of distribution of rights by Ralph Darendorff. In general, the idea of a contradiction due to the inconsistency and inconsistency of the positions of the parties to the conflict is dominant in modern conflictological discourse ^{[17, pp. 86-87]}. However, in the philosopher's concept, conflict is primarily a state associated with internal experience in which subjects are located, which is why the role of contradiction and inconsistency fades into the background. Consideration and analysis of aggression during mutual devouring, feelings of loss or eroticism due to violation of the prohibition of the parties to the conflict focuses on how the parties feel in the conflict and perceive reality, and not on the contradiction that has arisen between them. At the same time, since the role of internal experience was mentioned, it is important to distinguish Georges Bataille's conflict with intrapersonal conflict. The latter is an internal contradiction, a clash of internal attitudes ^{[3, p. 292]}, while the inner experience of a person in a conflict does not contain contradictions, but mobilizes the individual to spend, being something that the individual does not question ^{[4, p. 26]}. This interpretation makes it possible to use Georges Bataille's concept of conflict especially effectively when the subject of the conflict is not particularly clear to the parties due to certain circumstances, since in such situations the analysis of the contradiction between the parties to the conflict will be complicated.