Againt the Perversion: Aporias Of Masochism in the Context of Libidinal Thought

The article examines masochism as a concept of continental theory and philosophy, which has a positive potential. In contrast to clinical and psychoanalytic approaches that consider masochism as a negative phenomenon, there are two trends in French philosophy of the second half of the twentieth century: 1) masochism means priv- ileged access to truth (René Girard); 2) masochism is understood as a subversive practice that undermines the law (Gilles Deleuze). Both trends have had a signif- icant impact on modern theory, which applies masochistic logic to a variety of issues: defining male subjectivity, interpreting the concepts of classical aesthetics and describing ontological projects in terms of perversion, etc. The result is a theo- retical consensus that recognizes masochism as an essential concept of critical the- ory, which also brings masochism out of the shadow of the more influential notion of sadism. The critical intuition of this article has its origins in two works — Jean-François Lyotard’s book Libidinal Economy (1974) and Peter Strickland’s film The Duke of Bur- gundy (2014). In both cases, there is an unexpected skepticism about the position that masochism has a positive potential (both political and epistemological). At the same time, it is important that Lyotard and Strickland’s criticism of perversion is not carried out on the basis of a conservative position that defends the boundaries of normativity. Instead, it is proposed to clarify the hidden contradictions inherent in radical thought and art, inspired by the rehabilitation of the phenomenon of per- version. The main focus of the article is on the aporias of Deleuze’s theory of mas- ochism. The influence of the work Masochism: Coldness and Cruelty (1967) makes it especially important for the present study. The article focuses not on the innova- tive approach to Deleuze’s masochism, but, on the contrary, on the lines of thought in which Deleuze inherits traditions. It is these premises that in many respects dem- onstrate the problematic nature of his approach. Analyzing these premises in the context of Lyotard’s work and Strickland’s film reveals the groundlessness of the expectances that modern theory associates with masochism.