Archive for the ‘Jean Baudrillard’ Category

消費社會 02

May 24, 2009

消費社會 02

The Consumer Society by Baudrillard


Everydayness as closure, as Verborgenheit, would be unbearable 無法忍受without the simulacrum 幻影of the world, without the alibi 藉口of participation in the world. It has to be fuelled刺激 by the images, the repeated signs of that transcendence 超驗. As we have seen, its tranquility 寧靜needs the vertiginous 暈眩的spin 旋轉of reality and history. Its tranquility requires perpetual 永久consumed violence for its own exaltation 欣喜


That is its particular obscenity 猥褻. It is partial to events and violence, provided 假如the violence is served up at room temperature. The caricature 諷刺 image of this has the TV viewer lounging 閒逛in front of images of the Vietnam War. The TV image, like a window turned outside-in , opens initially 起初on to a room and, in that room, the cruel exteriority 外在性of the world becomes something intimate 親蜜and warm — warm with a perverse 變態 warmth.


At this `lived’ level, consumption makes maximum 最大量exclusion 排除from the (real, social, historical) world the maximum index 索引of security. It seeks the resolution 溶化 of tensions — that happiness by default 缺席. But it runs up against 對抗a contradiction: the contradiction between the passivity implied by this new value system and the norms 規範of a social morality which, in essentials, remains one of voluntarism, action, efficacy 功效and sacrifice. Hence, the intense sense of guilt which attaches to 連繫this new style of hedonistic 享樂的behavior and the urgent need, clearly outlined 描述by the `strategists 策略of desire’, to take the guilt out of passivity. For millions of people without histories, and happy to be so, passivity has to be rendered 成為 guiltless. And this is where spectacular 壯觀的

dramatization by the mass media comes in (the accident/catastrophe report as a generalized category 分類of all messages): in order for this contradiction between puritanical 禁欲and hedonistic享樂 morality to be resolved, this tranquility 寧靜of the private sphere範圍 has to appear as a value preserved 保存 only with great difficulty, constantly under threat and beset by the dangers of a catastrophic 災難destiny. The violence and inhumanity 非人性of the outside world are needed not just so that security may be experienced more deeply as security (in the economy of enjoyment [jouissance]), but also so that it should be felt justifiable 有道理 at every moment as an option 選擇(in the economy of the morality of salvation 救贖). The signs of destiny, passion and fatality 宿舍 must flourish 興隆around the preserved zone地區 in order 有秩序


The formal liturgy 聖餐式of the object that everydayness may seize back the grandeur 輝煌and sublimity 崇高 of which it is, precisely, the reverse 逆轉的 side. Fatality 宿命is thus evoked 召喚and signified on all sides, so that banality 陳腐 may revel狂喜 in it and find favor. The fact that road accidents play so extraordinarily well on radio and TV, in the press, in individual conversation and in the talk of the nation proves this: the crash is the finest exemplar 例子of `daily fatality’. If it is exploited 利用with such passion, this is because it performs an essential collective function. The litany 連續of road deaths is rivaled 匹敵only by the litany of weather forecasts. In fact the two form a mythic couple — the obsession 著迷with the sun and the litany of death are inseparable 不可分開.


The formal liturgy 聖餐式of the object that everydayness may seize back the grandeur 輝煌and sublimity 崇高 of which it is, precisely, the reverse 逆轉的 side. Fatality 宿命is thus evoked 召喚and signified on all sides, so that banality 陳腐 may revel狂喜 in it and find favor. The fact that road accidents play so extraordinarily well on radio and TV, in the press, in individual conversation and in the talk of the nation proves this: the crash is the finest exemplar 例子of `daily fatality’. If it is exploited 利用with such passion, this is because it performs an essential collective function. The litany 連續of road deaths is rivaled 匹敵only by the litany of weather forecasts. In fact the two form a mythic couple — the obsession 著迷with the sun and the litany of death are inseparable 不可分開.


Everydayness thus offers this curious mix of euphoric 幸福感 justification 理由by `social standing’ and passivity, on the one hand, and the delectatio 愉快的morosa 孤僻of potential 潛在 victims of destiny on the other. The whole forms a specific mentality or, rather, `sentimentality’ 多愁善感. The consumer society sees itself as an encircled Jerusalem, rich and threatened. That is its ideology. 意識形態

消費社會 01

May 23, 2009

消費社會 01

 The Consumer Society by Baudrillard 布希亞

Part I: The Formal 正式的Liturgy 聖餐儀式of the Object


1: Profusion 慷慨


There is all around us today a kind of fantastic奇妙的 conspicuousness 顯著 of consumption and abundance豐富, constituted 組成 by the multiplication 加倍 of objects, services and material goods, and this represents something of a fundamental mutation 變種 in the ecology 生態學of the human species 品種. Strictly speaking, the humans of the age of affluence 豐富are surrounded not so much by other human beings, as they were in all previous ages, but by objects. Their daily dealings處理 are now not so much with their fellow men, but rather– on a rising statistical 統計的curve曲線 — with the reception and manipulation 操控of goods and messages. This

runs from the very complex organization 組職 of the household, with its dozens of

technical 機械的slaves, to street furniture and the whole material machinery of communication; from professional activities to the permanent spectacle of the celebration of the object in advertising and the hundreds of daily messages from the mass media; from the minor proliferation 繁殖of vaguely obsessional gadgetry 機件to the symbolic psychodramas心理劇 fuelled 激發by the nocturnal 夜間的objects which come to haunt 縈繞 us even in our dreams. The two concepts `environment’ and `ambience’ 氣氛have doubtless only enjoyed such a vogue since we have come to live not so much alongside other human beings — in their physical presence and the presence of their speech — as beneath the mute gaze 眼光of mesmerizing 迷惑, obedient objects which endlessly repeat the same refrain 疊句: that of our dumbfounded 驚愕的power, our virtual affluence 富裕, our absence one from another. Just as the wolf-child became a wolf by living among wolves, so we too are slowly becoming functional 功用性


We live by object time: by this I mean that we live at the pace 步調 of objects, live to the rhythm 韻律of their ceaseless succession連續. Today, it is we who watch them as they are born, grow to maturity 成熟and die, whereas in all previous civilizations it was timeless objects, instruments or monuments which outlived活得更長久 the generations of human beings.


Objects are neither a flora 植物nor a fauna 動物. And yet they do indeed give the impression of a proliferating 增殖 vegetation, a jungle in which the new wild man of modern times has difficulty recovering the reflexes 反應 of civilization.


We have to attempt rapidly to describe this fauna 動物and flora 植物, which man has produced and which comes back to encircle 包圍and invade 侵犯 him as it might in a bad science fiction novel. We have to describe these things as we see and experience them, never forgetting, in their splendor 輝煌and profusion 豐富, that they are the product of a human activity and are dominated 支配 not by natural ecological 生態的 laws, but by the law of exchange-value 交換價值. The busiest streets of London are crowded with shops whose show cases 櫥櫃display all the riches of the world, Indian shawls 圍巾, American revolvers 手槍, Chinese porcelain 瓷器, Parisian corsets 緊身褡, furs 皮草from Russia and spices from the tropics熱帶, but all of these worldly things bear odious 可憎的, white paper labels with Arabic numerals 數字and the laconic 簡明的symbols £.s.d. This is how commodities 貨物are presented in circulation. 流通 (Marx) 馬克思



Profusion 豐富and the Package 包裹


Profusion and the package, piling high are clearly the most striking 顯著descriptive 描述性 features. The big department stores, with their abundance of canned foods and clothing, of foodstuffs and ready-made garments 衣服, are like the primal 原始的landscape, the geometrical locus of abundance. But every street, with its cluttered 塞滿, glittering 閃亮shop-windows (the least scarce 稀少的commodity 貨品here being light, without which the merchandise 貨物would be merely what it is), their displays of cooked meats, and indeed the entire alimentary 營養的and vestimentary 衣服的feast, all stimulate 刺激magical salivation 唾液. There is something more in this piling 堆放high than the quantity of products: the manifest 明顯 presence of surplus 多餘, the magical, definitive negation of scarcity 稀少, the maternal, luxurious sense of being already in the Land of Cockaigne. Our markets, major shopping thoroughfares 通道and superstores also mimic a new-found nature of prodigious 巨大的fecundity豐饒. These are our Valleys of Canaan where, in place of milk and honey, streams of neon flow down over ketchup 番茄醬and plastic. But no matter! We find here the fervid 熾熱的hope that there should be not enough, but too much — and too much for everyone: by buying a piece of this land, you acquire the crumbling 崩坍pyramid of oysters 牡蠣, meats, pears or tinned 罐裝asparagus 蘆筍. You buy the part for the whole. And this metonymic 換喻, repetitive discourse of consumable matter, of the commodity 貨物 , becomes once again, through a great collective metaphor by virtue of 憑藉its very excess — the image of the gift, and of that inexhaustible 耗不完的and spectacular prodigality 豐饒 which characterizes the feast.


布希亞論誘拐 08

May 9, 2009

布希亞論誘拐 08 Baudrillard on Seduction

Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯



This femininity, the eternal irony
of the community.






Femininity as a principle of uncertainty.


It causes the sexual poles to waver. It is not the pole opposed to masculinity, but what abolishes the differential opposition, and thus sexuality itself, as incarnated historically in the masculine phallocracy, as it might be incarnated in the future in a female phallocracy. If femininity is a principle of uncertainty, it is where it is itself uncertain that this uncertainty will be greatest: in the play of femininity.




Neither homosexuals nor transexuals, transvestites like to play with the indistinctness of the sexes. The spell they cast, over themselves as well as others, is born of sexual vacillation and not, as is customary, the attraction of one sex for the other. They do not really like male men or female women, nor those who define themselves, redundantly, as distinct sexual beings. In order for sex to exist, signs must reduplicate biological being. Here the signs are separated from biology, and consequently the sexes no longer exist properly speaking. What transvestites love is this game of signs, what excites them is to seduce the signs themselves. With them everything is makeup, theater, and seduction. They appear obsessed with games of sex, but they are obsessed, first of all, with play itself; and if their lives appear more sexually endowed than our own, it is because they make sex into a total, gestural, sensual, and ritual game, an exalted but ironic invocation.


Nico seemed so beautiful only because her femininity appeared so completely put on. She emanated something more than beauty, something more sublime, a different seduction. And there was deception: she was a false drag queen, a real woman, in fact, playing the queen. It is easier for a non-female/female than for a real woman, already legitimated by her sex, to move amongst the signs and take seduction to the limit. Only the non-female/female can exercise an untainted fascination, because s/he is more seductive than sexual. The fascination is lost when the real sex shows through; to be sure,
some other desire may find something here, but precisely no longer in that perfection that belongs to artifice alone.




Seduction is always more singular and sublime than sex, and it commands the higher price. One must not seek to ground transvestism in bisexuality. For the sexes and sexual dispositions, whether mixed or ambivalent, indefinite or inverted, are still real, and still bear witness to the psychic reality of sex. Here, however, it is this very definition of the sexual that is eclipsed. Not that this game is perverse. What is perverse is what perverts the order of the terms; but here there are no longer any terms to pervert, only signs to seduce.



布希亞論誘拐 07

May 3, 2009

布希亞論誘拐 07 Baudrillard on Seduction

Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯


Any movement that believes it can subvert a system by its infrastructure is naive. Seduction is more intelligent, and seemingly spontaneously so. Immediately obvious – seduction need not be demonstrated, nor justified – it is there all at once, in the reversal of all the alleged depth of the real, of all psychology, anatomy, truth, or power. It knows (this is its secret) that there is no anatomy, nor psychology, that all signs are reversible. Nothing belongs to it, except appearances – all powers elude it, but it “reversibilizes” all their signs. How can one oppose seduction? The only thing truly at stake is mastery of the strategy of appearances, against the force of being and reality. There is no need to play being against being, or truth against truth; why become stuck undermining foundations, when a light manipulation of appearances will do?




Now woman is but appearance. And it is the feminine as appearance that thwarts masculine depth. Instead of rising up against such “insulting” counsel, women would do well to let themselves be seduced by its truth, for here lies the secret of their strength, which they are in the process of losing by erecting a contrary, feminine depth.




It is not quite the feminine as surface that is opposed to the masculine as depth, but the feminine as indistinctness of surface and depth. Or as indifference to the authentic and the artificial. Joan Riviere, in “Feminité sans mascarade” (La Psychoanalyse no. 7), makes a fundamental claim – one that contains within it all seduction: “Whether femininity be authentic or superficial, it is fundamentally the same thing.”




This can be said only of the feminine. The masculine, by contrast, possesses unfailing powers of discrimination and absolute criteria for pronouncing the truth. The masculine is certain, the feminine is insoluble. Now, surprisingly, this proposition, that in the feminine the very distinction between authenticity and artifice is without foundation, also defines the space of simulation. Here too one cannot distinguish between reality and its models, there being no other reality than that secreted by the simulative models,
just as there is no other femininity than that of appearances. Simulation too is insoluble.




This strange coincidence points to the ambiguity of the feminine: it simultaneously provides radical evidence of simulation, and the only possibility of its overcoming – in seduction, precisely.



布希亞論誘拐 06

May 1, 2009

布希亞論誘拐 06   Baudrillard on Seduction

Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯


There is a strange, fierce complicity between the feminist movement and the order of truth. For seduction is resisted and rejected as a misappropriation of women’s true being, a truth that in the last instance is to be found inscribed in their bodies and desires. In one stroke the immense privilege of the feminine is effaced: the privilege of having never acceded to truth or meaning, and of having remained absolute master of the realm of appearances. The capacity immanent to seduction to deny things their truth and turn it into a game, the pure play of appearances, and thereby foil all systems of power and meaning with a mere turn of the hand. The ability to turn appearances in on themselves, to play on the body’s appearances, rather than with the depths of desire. Now all appearances are reversible . ..only at the level of appearances are systems fragile and vulnerable . . . meaning is vulnerable only to enchantment. One must be incredibly blind to deny the sole force that is equal and superior to all others, since with a simple play of the strategy of appearances, it turns them upside down.


     Anatomy is destiny, Freud said. One might be surprised that the feminist movement’s rejection of this definition, phallic by definition, and sealed with the stamp of anatomy, opens onto an alternative that remains fundamentally biological and anatomical:


                 Indeed, woman’s pleasure does not have to choose
                between clitoral activity and vaginal passivity, for
               example. The pleasure of the vaginal caress does
                not have to be substituted for that of the clitoral
               caress. They each contribute, irreplaceably, to
              woman’s pleasure. Among other caresses . . .Fon-
              dling the breasts, touching the vulva, spreading the
              lips, stroking the posterior wall of the vagina,
              brushing against the mouth of the uterus, and so
             on. To evoke only a few of the most specifically
             female pleasures.

                                                     Luce Irigaray










     Parole de femme? But it is always an anatomical speech, always that of the body. What is specific to women lies in the diffraction of the erogenous zones, in a decentered eroticism, the diffuse polyvalence of sexual pleasure and the transfiguration of the entire body by desire: this is the theme song that runs through the entire female, sexual revolution, but also through our entire culture of the body, from the Anagrammes of Bellmer to Deleuze’s mechanized connections. It is always a question of the body, if not the anatomical, then the organic, erogenous body, the functional body that, even in fragmented and metaphorical form, would have pleasure as its object and desire as its natural manifestation. But then either the body is here only a metaphor (and if this is the case, what is the sexual revolution, and our entire culture, having become a body culture, talking about?), or else, with this body speech, this woman speech, we have, very definitely, entered into an anatomical destiny, into anatomy as destiny. There is nothing here radically opposed to Freud’s maxim.


        Nowhere is it a question of seduction, the body worked by artifice (and not by desire), the body seduced, the body to be seduced, the body in its passion separated from its truth, from that ethical truth of desire which obsesses us – that serious, profoundly religious truth that the body today incarnates, and for which seduction is just as evil and deceitful as it once was for religion. Nowhere is it a question of the body delivered to appearances. Now, seduction alone is radically opposed to anatomy as destiny. Seduction alone breaks the distinctive sexualization of bodies and the inevitable phallic economy that results.


布希亞論誘拐 05

April 30, 2009

布希亞論誘拐 05 Baudrillard on Seduction

Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯


This strength of the feminine is that of seduction.



One may catch a glimpse of another, parallel universe (the two never meet) with the decline of psychoanalysis and sexuality as strong structures, and their cleansing within a psy and molecular universe (that of their final liberation). A universe that can no longer be interpreted in terms of psychic or psychological relations, nor those of repression and the unconscious, but must be interpreted in the terms of play, challenges, duels, the strategy of appearances – that is, the terms of seduction. A universe that can no longer be interpreted in terms of structures and diacritical oppositions, but implies a seductive reversibility – a universe where the feminine is not what opposes the masculine, but what seduces the masculine.




In seduction the feminine is neither a marked nor an unmarked term. It does not mask the “autonomy” of desire, pleasure or the body, or of a speech or writing that it has supposedly lost(?). Nor does it lay claim to some truth of its own. It seduces. To be sure, one calls the sovereignty of seduction feminine by convention, the same convention that claims sexuality to be fundamentally masculine. But the important point is that this form of sovereignty has always existed – delineating, from a distance, the feminine as something that is nothing, that is never “produced,” is never where it is produced (and certainly cannot, therefore, be found in any “feminist” demand). And this not from the perspective of a psychic or biological bi-sexuality, but that of the trans-sexuality of seduction which the entire organization of sex tends to reject – as does psychoanalysis in accordance with the axiom that there is no other structure than that of sexuality (which renders it incapable, by definition, of speaking about anything else).




What does the women’s movement oppose to the phallocratic structure? Autonomy, difference, a specificity of desire and pleasure, a different relation to the female body, a speech, a writing but never seduction. They are ashamed of seduction, as implying an artificial presentation of the body, or a life of vassalage and prostitution. They do not understand that seduction represents mastery over the symbolic universe, while power
represents only mastery of the real universe. The sovereignty of seduction is incommensurable with the possession of political or sexual power.



布希亞論誘拐 04

April 29, 2009

布希亞論誘拐 04 Baudrillard on Seduction

Translated by Springhero 雄伯


Freud was right: there is but one sexuality, one libido – and it is masculine. Sexuality has a strong, discriminative structure centered on the phallus, castration, the Name-of-the Father, and repression. There is none other. There is no use dreaming of some non-phallic, unlocked, unmarked sexuality. There is no use seeking, from within this structure, to have the feminine pass through to the other side, or to cross terms. Either the structure remains the same, with the female being entirely absorbed by the male, or else it collapses, and there is no longer either female or male – the degree zero of the structure. This is very much what is happening today: erotic polyvalence, the infinite potentiality of desire, different connections, diffractions, libidinal intensities – all multiple variants of a liberatory alternative coming from the frontiers of a psychoanalysis free of Freud, or from the frontiers of desire free of psychoanalysis. Behind the effervescence of the paradigm of sex, everything is converging towards the non-differentiation of the structure and its
potential neutralization.


    佛洛依德説得沒錯:只有一個性愛,只有一個精力,那就是男性。性愛有一個強烈的,睥睨一切的結構,集中在陽具,去勢,父之名,及壓抑。沒有其它結構。夢想會有非陽具,不受鎖禁的,無名的性愛,是沒有用的。設法讓女性從這個結構之內通往到另一邊,或越過限制,是沒有用的。這個結構始終一樣,女性完全被男性所吸收,要不然它會崩坍,不再有女性或男性,成為結構的零度。這就是今天所發生的狀況:性愛多重化,慾望的無限潛力,不同結合,衍射,精力的旺盛,各種來自於跟佛洛依德無關的精神分析學邊境的釋放方式, 或來自於跟精神分析學無關的慾望的邊境。在各種性愛典範的沸騰背後,一切都匯集朝向結構的沒有差異及其潛力的中立。


The danger of the sexual revolution for the female is that she will be enclosed within a structure that condemns her to either discrimination when the structure is strong, or a derisory triumph within a weakened structure. The feminine, however, is, and has always been, somewhere else. That is the secret of its strength. Just as it is said that something lasts because its existence is not adequate to its essence, it must be said that the feminine seduces because it is never where it thinks it is, or where it thinks itself. The feminine is not found in the history of suffering and oppression imputed to it – women’s historical tribulations (though by guile it conceals itself therein). It suffers such servitude only when assigned to and repressed within this structure – to which the sexual revolution assigns and represses it all the more dramatically.




But by what aberrant complicity (complicit with what? if not, precisely, the male) would one have us believe that this is the female’s history? Repression is already here in full force, in the narrative of women’s sexual and political misery, to the exclusion of every other type of strength and sovereignty. There is an alternative to sex and to power, one that psychoanalysis cannot know because its axiomatics are sexual. And yes, this alternative is undoubtedly of the order of the feminine, understood outside the opposition masculine/feminine, that opposition being essentially masculine, sexual in intention, and incapable of being overturned without ceasing to exist.



布希亞論誘拐 03

April 28, 2009

布希亞論誘拐 03 Baudrillard on Seduction

Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯





Nothing is less certain today than sex, behind the liberation of its discourse. And nothing today is less certain than desire, behind the proliferation of its images.




In matters of sex, the proliferation is approaching total loss. Here lies the secret of the ever increasing production of sex and its signs, and the hyperrealism of sexual pleasure, particularly feminine pleasure. The principle of uncertainty has extended to sexual reason, as well as political and economic reason.




The state of sex’s liberation is also that of its indetermination. No more want, no more prohibitions, and no more limits: it is the loss of every referential principle. Economic reason is sustained only by penury; it is put into question with the realization of its objective, the abolition of the spectre of penury. Desire too is sustained only by want. When desire is entirely on the side of demand, when it is operationalized without

restrictions, it loses its imaginary and, therefore, its reality; it appears everywhere, but in generalized simulation. It is the ghost of desire that haunts the defunct reality of sex. Sex is everywhere, except in sexuality (Barthes).




In sexual mythology, the transition towards the feminine is contemporaneous with the passage from determination to general indetermination. The feminine is not substituted for the masculine as one sex for another, according to some structural inversion. It is substituted as the end of the determinate representation of sex, as the flotation of the law that regulates the difference between the sexes. The ascent of the feminine corresponds to both the apogee of sexual pleasure and a catastrophe relative to sex’s reality principle.

And so it is femininity that is gripping, in the present and fatal situation of sex’s hyperreality – as it was yesterday, but indirect contrast, in irony and seduction.



布希亞論誘拐 02

April 28, 2009

布希亞論誘拐 02  Baudrillard on Seduction

Translated by Springhero 雄伯譯


Seduction, however, never belongs to the order of nature, but that of artifice – never to the order of energy, but that of signs and rituals. This is why all the great systems of production and interpretation have not ceased to exclude seduction to its good fortune from their conceptual field. For seduction continues to haunt them from without, and from deep within its forsaken state, threatening them with collapse. It awaits the destruction of every godly order, including those of production and desire. Seduction continues to appear to all orthodoxies as malefice and artifice, a black magic for the deviation of all truths, an exaltation of the malicious use of signs, a conspiracy of signs. Every discourse is threatened with this sudden reversibility, absorbed into its own signs without a trace of meaning. This is why all disciplines, which have as an axiom the coherence and finality of their discourse, must try to exorcize it. This is where seduction and femininity are confounded, indeed, confused . Masculinity has always been haunted by this sudden reversibility within the feminine. Seduction and femininity are ineluctable as the reverse side of sex, meaning and power.




Today the exorcism is more violent and systematic. We are entering the era of final solutions; for example, that of the sexual revolution, of the production and management of all liminal and subliminal pleasures, the micro-processing of desire, with the woman who produces herself as woman, and as sex, being the last avatar. Ending seduction.




Or else the triumph of a soft seduction, a white, diffuse feminization and eroticization of all relations in an enervated social universe.




Or else none of the above. For nothing can be greater than seduction itself, not even the order that destroys it.



布希亞論誘拐 01

April 26, 2009

布希亞論誘拐 01

Baudrillard on Seduction

Translated by Springhero


A fixed destiny weighs on seduction. For religion seduction was a strategy of the devil, whether in the guise of witchcraft or love. It is always the seduction of evil – or of the world. It is the very artifice of the world. Its malediction has been un-changed in ethics and philosophy, and today it is maintained in psychoanalysis and the ‘liberation of desire.’ Given the present-day promotion of sex, evil and perversion, along with the celebration of the off times programmatic resurrection of all that was once accursed, it might seem paradoxical that seduction has remained in the shadows – and even returned there to




The eighteenth century still spoke of seduction. It was, with valor and honor, a central preoccupation of the aristocratic spheres. The bourgeois Revolution put an end to this preoccupation (and the others, the later revolutions ended it irrevocably – every revolution, in its beginnings, seeks to end the seduction of appearances). The bourgeois era dedicated itself to nature and production, things quite foreign and even expressly fatal to seduction. And since sexuality arises, as Foucault notes, from a process of production (of discourse, speech or desire), it is not at all surprising that seduction has been all the more covered over. We live today in the promotion of nature, be it the good nature of the soul of yesteryear, or the good material nature of things, or even the psychic nature of desire. Nature pursues its realization through all the metamorphosis of the repressed, and through the liberation of all energies, be they psychic, social or material.