Home - Texts - Galleries - Other media - Links - Contact

NOTE: This text was published in “KVICKSAND / Surrealistisk Uppvigling” #1, August 1989, Surrealistförlaget, Stockholm. It was followed up by a “part 2” in the next journal of the surrealist group in Stockholm.


Economy is repressively desublimated1 sexuality, and sexuality is in its forms subjected to this sublimation. Thus, historical changes of economy govern the historical expression of non-historical sexuality. If the production of children yesterday was, and in the third world is, an economic necessity with consequent taboos for sexual intercourse outside of marriage and at menstruation etc., it in the personality-oriented western-industrial economy (which is not in need of big families but of stronger social personality suggestions), becomes more and more pushed aside in favour of the personality-economical market exchange in the form of sexual intercourses and caresses. The taboos are instead about the acts being outside of the way of functioning of the personality market: selfish pleasure, the failure to offer delight in the corresponding degree of the own received one, sexual acts committed without preceeding personality-economical bargains (respect for the personality introduction of the counterpart, and payment to the price offered by him/her) etc.

It is therefore completely logical that people in better economical position (even in the strict monetary sense) do not produce children in the same degree as the poorer ones. The production of children, falsely regarded as a personality-economical profit, is usually only an expression for that everybody looses on the personality market (the law of the downward tendency of the profit quota2 applies here too!), and therefore becomes a sublimation of this loss. The hereditary sin, which could only be fought by founding families, is replaced by a “biologized social guilt”, wherein the payment has become the “democratic sexuality” itself, whose straits are solved secondly by an eventual production of children. It is not so strange, then, that marriages, even those producing children, are nowadays much shorter than before. Children, who have been a productive and direct economic necessity and base (why many wives were needed in many parts of the world, as weIl as many sons), become an indirect personality-economical complement, to sublimate the improductive frustration which is spreading more and more during the end phase of capitalism (and which has such absurd expressions as e.g. house property speculation). “Happiness” being sublimated from unhappiness is very typical for this epoch and also the only solution.

Still, there are of course parents who in many ways have a very nonoedipal relation to their children. This behaviour is though granted a terrorist and irresponsible race, taking so big risks that every forethought and “family planning” must have been absent. The usual, though, is of course that they degenerate into the “normal” oedipal form of parenthood at least partly.

Every economy means a certain measure of repression, and the organization of the family, both as production- and child-economical (before) and sexual- and personality-economical unit (today) inevitably means fixed sex-roles, in which every liberation must be merely temporary and relative. In an economy, where production has become pushed aside in favour of stagnation and defence of positions, human relations, including the sexual ones, requisition the most fixed and close objects. The poor has finally only its body and its sex and must invest in it in order to survive. (Half-way to the annihilation there is also a sales of worthlessness, of nothingness – the beggar, whose social exchange is his bowed head and empty gaze.) The most material, biological, becomes an object for the most abstracting and alienating process: the economical and above all the personality-economical. What is, biologically speaking, the most brilliant means for production, and source of inspiration for creativity of different kinds, the human body, is put as the utmost guardian against the liberation of its own power. No emancipation is possible without anti-oedipal terrorism, without anti-economical revolt.


1. See H. Marcuse, “Eros and Civilization”, 1952.
2. That increased mechanization leads to diminished profitability. See K. Marx, “Capital”.

Johannes Bergmark
Kontakt (Bergmark).
Denna sida uppdaterad 11 april 2012.

Home - Texts - Galleries - Other media - Links - Contact