    Sex and Politics - Gilad Atzmon

    A talk in Bookmarks, London’s Marxist bookshop, 17.6.05

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/sexpolitics.html

    Today I am going to talk about a man who has been removed from our
    intellectual discourse. Considering his immense influence in the first
    half of the 20th century, his complete disappearance must raise some
    questions. Wittgenstein regarded him as a major influence, James Joyce
    drew upon him in the writing of Ulysses. The man inspired Robert Musil
    and Herman Broch. I can easily trace his thoughts in Lacan and
    Heidegger. Freud was debating with his ideas and even Hitler mentioned
    him, admitting that “there was one decent Jew but even he killed
    himself”. Otto Weininger was one of the most influential intellectual
    figures in the first four decades of the 20th century and yet, I assume
    that not many in this room are familiar with his thoughts or have even
    heard his name before. I assume that I should tell you why. Ladies and
    Gentleman, Otto Wenienger was a racist, an anti Semite and a radical
    misogynist. He didn’t like Jews or women but guess what, he was a Jew
    himself and as far as historical research can reveal any truth at all,
    he was an effeminate one.

    Let me assure you that I am not interested in Weininger’s sexist and
    anti Semitic tendencies. If anything, I find those two aspects of his
    writing rather entertaining. Many of his statements can’t be taken
    seriously. His anti-women ranting depicts an image of a naughty
    schoolboy who is struggling to live in terms with the world of adults,
    and yet, he is one of the most astonishing thinkers I have ever come
    across. His understanding of the notion of the genius could easily find
    its way into the last pages of Kant’s third critique. His comprehension
    of sexuality is overwhelming and considering the fact that his book was
    published when he was just twenty-one years old, even his many opponents
    admit that the man was an astonishing talent. In a word, there is far
    too much wisdom in Weininger for us to cast him aside without looking.
    Moreover, personally speaking, I must admit that Weininger helped me to
    grasp who I am, or rather who I may be, what I do, what I try to achieve
    and why some people do try to stop me.

    Weininger published Sex and Character, his one and only book in 1903. He
    was just 21 at the time. The book was presented as a philosophical study
    of sexuality. The book is a ferocious attack on the notion of the woman,
    both the idea and the appearance. But it isn’t only women Weininger
    seems to despise, the Jew whom he presents as a degraded being is far
    from being flattered. The English man is presented as an effeminate
    character. Let me say it loudly, Weininger is outrageous. Some of my
    female associates who saw the text dismissed it before they reached the
    end of the first paragraph and yet I do insist that almost every
    sentence in Weininger’s text falls into the prestigious category of
    thought provoking literature. Indeed Weininger is a racist, he is a
    sexist, he hates women, he hates Jews, he hates almost everything that
    fails to be Aryan masculinity, his tendency towards mathematical
    formulation is slightly childish and no doubt dated. He makes some
    categorical mistakes but he made me think. And with your permission I
    would like to share with you my thoughts about the man.

    Sexuality

    Weininger’s point of departure is far from being original. Man and
    Woman, he says, are merely types. In other words, the individual
    appearance is basically a manifestation of a mixture of the two types.
    Every individual is a compound of the two sexual types in different
    proportions. Some men are more masculine than others, some women are
    more feminine than their sisters. This idea is obviously supported by
    many physiological observations as well as genetic and biological
    findings.

    But Weininger doesn’t stop there. He moves on and formulates the ‘law of
    sexual attraction’. According to Weininger : “For true sexual union it
    is necessary that there come together a complete Male and a complete
    Female”[1] (Weininger, 2003: 29). The bond between the man and the woman
    results in a unity of maleness and femaleness in which the two partners
    mutually contribute. In practice, Weininger is talking here about the
    complementary between Man and Woman. Each of the partners mutually
    contributes towards the formation of a greater femininity and
    masculinity. For instance, If Tony is 80% male and 20% female and Sue is
    20% male and 80% female then the sum of their added maleness and
    femaleness results in a perfect unity of 100% female and 100% male. In
    other words, as far as sexual attraction is concerned we can expect Tony
    and Sue to be highly excited about each other. Their union brings
    together a complete 100% unity of man and woman.

    Needless to say that Weininger’s reference to human beings as
    statistical objects is slightly bizarre as well as problematic. When we
    prospect the people around us we do not see mathematical figures or
    clear cut division between masculinity and femininity. We rather see
    human being with, desires, wishes, intentions, hopes and sexual needs.
    And yet, Weininger’s idea, regardless of its practical implications, is
    far from being stupid. The idea that Tony and Sue are engaged in a
    complementary relationship is very explanatory. Tony is searching for
    his missing masculinity while Sue is celebrating the finding of her
    missing femininity. Tony is attracted to Sue not only because of her
    feminine qualities but also because she possesses that which Tony
    misses. According to Weininger we are attracted to those who bring us
    closer to unity.

    We would naturally expect that the bond between extreme masculinity and
    extreme femininity would result in a high sexual attraction. But as
    Weininger points out, this attraction is coupled with very little cross
    gender understanding: “The more femaleness a woman possess the less will
    she understand a man…… So also the more manly a man is the less will he
    understand women” (Weininger, 2003: 57). The reason is clear, the more
    femaleness woman possesses, the less maleness is presented within her
    entire physical and psychological system.

    This Weiningerian insight may explain why men want their wives to come
    to bed in pyjamas while expecting their mistress to jump into bed in
    stockings and garters. With your wife you prefer to talk from time to
    time. You want her to understand you, you want her to listen to your
    repetitive boring stories about your day at work. She wants to complain
    about the kids. You both want to share as much as possible: night after
    night you share, you tell stories to each other, sometimes you even read
    books together, then you turn the light off and turn to the other side.
    The mistress is a completely different story: she is the ‘lack’, she
    isn’t there for the talking but rather for the ‘action’. You make love
    to her, you then take a shower and go back to the office. Rather than
    sharing, you are both engaged in a silent consumption of each other.
    Assuming for instance that Tony is very masculine and Sue is very
    feminine, then they will sexually attract each other but their chance of
    communication is negligible.

    This idea is shocking in its simplicity but its implications are a
    complete devastation. As it seems, it leaves the left discourse in
    ruins. If Weininger is correct, then comprehension of the Other is
    basically a form of self-realisation. If Weininger is correct, then the
    notion of empathy and Otherness are completely misleading. The concept
    of the ‘Other’ which was enthusiastically embraced by the post WW2 left
    discourse (Levinas), is falling apart. If Weininger is right, there is
    no room for a discourse concerning the notion of empathy other than as a
    normative suggestion. In other words, there may be no room to believe
    that man is an empathic being. Tony can understand Sue as long as Sue is
    well presented within his psychic realm. I understand my beloved woman
    as long as I possess enough of her inside me. So in fact, communicating
    with my partner is basically a chat I conduct with: me, myself and I.
    Seemingly, men and women tend to complain about the lack of cross gender
    communication. As it seems, Weininger, manages to throw some light on
    the subject.

    The genius and the artist

    This very notion of possession of different psychological
    characteristics is explored by Weininger in his treatment of the genius.
    For Weininger it is more than obvious that the genius isn’t just a
    gifted being, genius isn’t a talent and it isn’t quality that can be
    learned or developed. The Genius is “a man who discovers many others in
    himself. He is a man with many men in his personality. But then the
    genius can understand other men better than they can understand
    themselves, because within himself he has not only the character he is
    grasping, but also its opposite. Duality is necessary for observation
    and comprehension…….in short, to understand man means to have equal
    parts of himself and opposite in one” (Weininger, 2003: 110).

    In a way, the genius is a person who hosts a dialectic dynamism that
    allows a rich prospect of the world and its human landscape to come
    alive. To a certain extant, Weininger is hinting here on the positive
    qualities of schizophrenia. Ideas that were further explored by Lacan
    years later. The genius is hosting a lively debate within himself. He
    can prospect different outlooks while he simultaneously explores
    different perspectives and their oppositions.

    The genius is always telling us something about the world, something
    that we didn’t know before. The scientist is observing the material and
    physical world, the philosopher is looking into the realm of ideas and
    the artist is looking into the self. As bizarre as it may sound, the
    artist is telling us something about the world just from looking into
    his own internal world; “in art, self-exploration is exploration of the
    world….. ” (Weininger, 2003: Author’s preface pg. I).

    Weininger argues that the genius is a subject to the “strangest
    passions” and “most repulsive instincts”. But those passions are opposed
    by other internal characters. For example, “Zola who has so faithfully
    described the impulse to commit murder didn’t commit murder himself
    because there were so many other characters in him” (Weininger, 2003:
    109). Zola, according to Weininger, would recognise the murderous
    impulse better than the murderer himself just because he would have the
    capability of recognising the impulse rather than merely being subject
    to it. The capability to convey a genuine fictional character is due to
    the fact that the character and its oppositions are well orientated
    within the artist’s psyche.

    Confession

    As some of you may realise, this is exactly where I myself start to take
    Weininger very seriously. For more than a few years I have been engaged
    in writing about Israel, Zionism, Jewishness. In my fictional writings I
    specialise in giving birth to some charming and yet appalling Israeli
    protagonists: they are all doomed people who are speeding towards a
    concrete wall. I write about people who can never manage to live in terms
    with the conditions they imposed upon themselves, people who never find
    their way home. In my political and ideological papers I try to
    establish a philosophical pattern that would enlighten the complexity
    involved with Jewishness. I am searching for the metaphysical core of
    the different supremacist world view, I am trying to follow the traces
    of morally and ethically degraded identities. But then, I always thought
    of myself as an autonomous thinker who posits himself in an Archimedean
    detached scouting position, I was aiming at establishing a clinical
    search for the condition of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

    Ladies and Gentleman, I was wrong. Weininger made it evidently clear to
    me, I am not detached from the reality I am writing about and I’ll never
    be. I am not looking at the Jews or the Jewish identity. I am not
    looking at the Israelis. I am looking into myself, I am looking into
    that which I possess, my internal and even eternal Jew. But my internal
    Jew isn’t living on an island, he is surrounded by many hostile enemies
    and counter personalities just there within my own psyche. Just there
    inside me, a war is taking its toll. Many characters are opposing each
    other. But then believe me, it isn’t as horrifying as it may sound. In
    fact, it is rather productive.

    The Anti-Semite

    Following his own paradigm Weininger continues and argues that “People
    love in others the qualities they would like to have but do not actually
    have in any great degree. So we only hate in others only what we do not
    wish to be, and what notwithstanding we are partly. We hate only
    qualities to which we approximate, but which we realise first in other
    persons…... Thus, the fact is explained the bitterest Anti-Semites are
    to be found amongst the Jews themselves” (Weininger, 2003: 304).

    Clearly, some Jews are opposing that which they despise amongst
    themselves. This tendency is called anti-Semitism but as we all know
    Jews are not alone. Some non Jews find the Jewish tendencies within
    themselves. According the Weininger, “even Richard Wagner, the Bitterest
    anti-Semite cannot be held free of accretion of Jewishness even in his
    art” (Weininger,2003: 305). Thus, I would allow myself to argue that for
    Weininger, Jewishness isn’t at all racial category. It is clearly a
    mindset which some of us possess and a very few of us try to oppose.

    But then, isn’t it a repetition of Marx’s treatment of the Jewish
    identity as explored in his famous and controversial essay ‘On The
    Jewish Question’ [2]? In the essay Marx equates Jews with capitalism,
    self-interest and money-grabbing. For Marx, capitalism is Judaism and
    Judaism is capitalism. Money has become a world power, and the practical
    Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of Christian nations. The
    Jews have liberated themselves in so far as Christians have become Jews.
    In Marx's eyes, the Jews are both creators and creation, quite literally
    the excrement of bourgeois capitalism. As he concludes ferociously: "The
    social emancipation of Jewry is the emancipation of society from Jewry."

    But then, Judging Marx’s ideas in Weinigerian idiom reveals:

    1. That Marx wasn’t regarding Jewishness as a racial identity but rather
    as a form of a mindset. In practice, it is the Christian nations who
    adopt Jewish mindset. 2. That Marx’s analysis is the outcome of Marx
    being himself partly Jewish. In other words, being a Weiningerian
    genius, Marx managed to oppose his own Jewish mindset.

    As we can see, Weininger is providing us with a pretty useful analytic
    tool. We may have to admit that he is giving us some insight into the
    subject of hatred and self-hatred. Weininger is going as far as arguing
    that the “Aryan has to thank the Jew that through him, he knows to guard
    against Judaism as a possibility within himself”. When we hate the Jew
    we hate our own private internal Jew. This would obviously explain the
    Nazi blind hatred towards anything which even remotely smelled Jewish.
    But then, if hatred is a form of self negation, then, I may as well have
    to admit that my war against Zionism should be realised as a war I
    declared upon myself. And let me take it one step further, as far as
    everyone in this room agrees with me that Zionism and racism must be
    defeated, we then all have to admit having a nice little Zionist racist
    within your psyche. Fighting racism and Zionism is opposing ourselves.
    And let me tell you, this is exactly the right way to go.

    Conclusion

    Clearly, Otto Weininger provides us with more than enough analytical
    tools to deconstruct his own work. One should ask, how come he knows so
    much about women? How come he hates them that much? How come he knows so
    much about Jews? How come he hates them that much? The answer is
    provided by Weininger’s thoughts though not by his own words. Weininger
    hates women and Jews because he is a Jew and a woman. He adores the
    Aryan masculinity because there is not a single drop of such a quality
    in his entirety. It is probably this revelation that led Weininger to
    kill himself just month after the publication of his book. He eventually
    managed to understand what his book was all about.

    I decided to talk to you about Otto Weininger today, mainly because a
    major philosopher is removed from our shelves and practically banned by
    our PC guards. Is it because he had nothing to say? Quite the opposite,
    he had far too much to say. Far more than many of us are willing to
    admit. Weininger, one of the last gigantic German philosophers, throws
    light on the most vivid aspects of our beingness. And as we all know,
    that which is too close can hardly be seen.

    But there is something else you want to think about. You may have
    noticed that while entering the Book Shop a noisy group of ‘Anti Zionist
    Jews’ was picketing in the street. They were picketing against me, my
    friends, my message, our message or even any message in general. I can
    assure you that both the Shop and myself were inviting them to engage in
    this debate. As you may imagine, they clearly refused. Weininger is
    telling us why. Clearly, they hate me, they hate everything I stand for.
    But then why do they hate me so much? Because they know me very, very
    well. You ask how come they know me that well? Very simple, I am there,
    deep inside each of them, I am the one who raises those unbearably
    annoying questions. I am the one who asks what Jewishness stands for,
    what Jewish secularity means. I question the intrinsic relationships
    between Zionism and Jewishness. I am happy to openly discuss any Jewish
    historical narrative including the holocaust and they simply hate me.
    Thanks to Weininger, we should realise now that they must despise me
    because those very questions keep sleep from their eyes. They all
    confront those questions on a daily basis but they cannot find the means
    within themselves to face the consequences of tackling those questions.
    They don’t even dare sitting with us in a room. Sitting here amongst you
    and me would mean as well being with oneself. It would mean confronting
    oneself. Instead of doing that they are engaged in the usual Talmudic
    symbolic game of labelling and smearing the messenger. Let’s admit it,
    killing the messenger is an intrinsic part of the Jewish historic
    narrative.

    Following my own confrontation with Weininger’s writings I do realise
    now that my work is drawing its power from a process of self reflection.
    Rather than looking at the world, I am basically looking into myself. I
    come out with music, literature and ideas. Whether my work is of any
    quality is down to you to decide. Whether I manage to say something
    about the world, days will tell. Some of you will read my books and I am
    pretty sure that you can make up your minds. But when it comes to those
    who were picketing out there earlier on, it is categorically clear, they
    are not going to make up their minds, they are not willing to be amongst
    others, or if to be more precise, they are not even willing to look into
    themselves. While we were sitting here in a book shop, they were engaged
    in burning books. This is the real meaning of the Jewish ghetto walls,
    whether it is the apartheid wall in Palestine or just a small separation
    wall here outside Bookmarks, London. Zionism is all about segregation,
    it is there to separate the Jews from the rest of humanity. It is so sad
    to find out that such a political disease contaminated even the very few
    Jews who declared to be its opponents. I wish those anti Zionist Jews
    well and I want to believe that sooner or later they will emancipate
    themselves. They will then come to sit with us.

    1. Weininger Otto, 2003, Sex and Character (Howard Fertig: New York)

    2. Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question, 1844,
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

    http://www.gilad.co.uk

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       We Oppose Anti-Semitism

       We, the undersigned individuals who are active in the search for justice
       and peace between Israelis and Palestinians, state our opposition to the
       anti-Semitic ideologies that are being articulated within our movement.

       Irrespective of political differences we may have, we stand together
       against anti-Jewish sentiment and to challenge the idea that the ruinous
       conflict has anything whatsoever to do with a "Jewish spirit" or "Jewish
       essence." We note that parallel attitudes about Islam lead to a similar
       reduction of the conflict to a matter of essence, which is just as
       dangerous and abhorrent.

       This ideology is represented in the writings of Paul Eisen, co-director
       of Deir Yassin Remembered. His essay, "Jewish Power" appears on the
       "Righteous Jews" website, which refused to print this response. His
       essay, "The Holocaust Wars," appears prominently on the Nazi Zundelsite
       as well as on Israel Shamir's website. Each appears on other websites.

       We reject the notion, posited in these essays, that there is a "Jewish
       essence" that naturally leads to the crimes against Palestinians that
       have been, and continue to be, committed by the State of Israel.

       We further condemn the attempt to introduce Holocaust Revisionist
       history into our movement. The health and welfare of neither
       Palestinians nor Israelis is served by Holocaust denial. On the
       contrary, their collective interests, and our movement, are seriously
       undermined by this attempt to "prove" that European Jewry was not
       systematically exterminated by Nazi fascism.

       We reject Paul Eisen's suggestion that the Palestinian solidarity
       movement, and Palestinians themselves, adopt this Revisionist history
       and "consider lobbing a few stones" at "world Jewry and its primary arm,
       the Holocaust."

       We find these ideologies repulsive and denounce all attempts to
       introduce them into our movement.

       Signed,

       Name Country Organization*

       Sami Abuhamdeh United States

       Paolo Amati Italy Ebrei contro l'Occupazione

       Yossi Amitay Israel Ben-Gurion University

       Bruce Ballin United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Julia Bard United Kingdom Jewish Socialists' Group

       Dana Bergen United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Zarina Bhatia United Kingdom

       Susan Blackwell United Kingdom Birmingham Association of University
       Teachers

       Hanna Braun United Kingdom Palestine Solidarity Campaign

       Irene Bruegel United Kingdom Jews for Justice for Palestinians

       Paola Canarutto Italy Ebrei contro l'Occupazione

       Roane Carey United States

       Na'ama Carmi Israel

       Michael Dahan Israel

       Angela Dale United Kingdom Jews Against Zionism

       Dennis Dixon United States Chicago Coalition for Civil Liberties and
       Rights

       Shraga Elam Switzerland Nahostforum

       Mark Elf United Kingdom Jews sans frontieres

       Lars Fetzek United States Not In My Name

       Mark Findlay United Kingdom Respect, the Unity Coalition

       David Finkel United States Editor, "Against the Current"

       Joel Finkel United States Not In My Name

       Frank Fisher United Kingdom Just Peace UK, JSG

       Terry Fletcher United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Giorgio Forti Italy Ebrei contro l'Occupazione

       Bilha Golan Israel

       David Green United States Not in My Name

       Tony Greenstein United Kingdom Jews Against Zionism

       Ran HaCohen Israel Tel Aviv University

       Anis Hamadeh Germany Anis Online

       Jay Hamburger United States shalomsalaam

       Lawrence Hamilton United States

       Glen Hauer United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Michael Heiser United Kingdom Individual; member of Jewish Socialists'
       Group

       Stanley Heller United States

       Annette Herskovits United States Buddhist Peace Fellowship

       Steven Heywood United Kingdom Birmingham University Students Against the
       War

       Louis Hirsch United States Not In My Name

       David Hoffman United States Humanity Check interfaith peace and
       reconciliation project

       Tikva Honig-Parnass Israel "Between the Lines" (BTL)

       Tal Itzhaki Israel Beit Zvi Academy for Performing Arts and Israeli
       Centre of OISTAT

       Baruch Kimmerling Israel Hebrew University

       Laurance Kisinger United States Some of The Above News

       Paul Kivel United States

       Mark Klein Canada

       Richard Kuper United Kingdom Jews for Justice for Palestinians

       David Landau United Kingdom Jewish Socialists' Group

       Clement Leibovitz Canada

       Dino Levi Italy Ebrei contro l'Occupazione

       Alan Levin United States Rockland Tikkun Community

       Michael Levin United States Not in My Name

       Cindy Levitt United States Not In My Name

       Lital Levy United States UC Berkeley

       Robin Lindheimer United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Moissis Litsis Greece journalist

       Michele Luzzati Italy Ebrei contro l'Occupazione

       Deborah Maccoby United Kingdom Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Just
       Peace UK

       David Makofsky United States Jewish Voice for Peace, Committes of
       Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism

       Stephen Marks United Kingdom Jews for Justice for Palestinians

       Mark Marshall Canada

       Nur Masalha United Kingdom Editor, "Holy Land Studies: A
       Multidisciplinary Journal"

       Ian McDonald United Kingdom Palestine Solidarity Campaign

       Miriam Moss United Kingdom Jewish Socialists' Group

       Maurice Naftalin United Kingdom Scottish Jews for a Just Peace

       Mahsoom Naina Mohamed United Kingdom University of Birmingham Socialist
       Society, Guild of Students

       Aref Nammari United States Movement for One Democratic Secular State

       Orna Neumann United Kingdom

       Ephraim Nimni Australia University of New South Wales

       Avraham Oz Israel University of Haifa & Beit Zvi Academy for Performing
       Arts

       Karen Platt United States individual; Jewish Voice for Peace

       Mitchell Plitnick United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Gigi Pomerantz United States individual - Peace Action Wisconsin

       Vivienne Porzsolt Australia Jews Against the Occupation, Sydney

       Shakhar Rahav United States

       Roland Rance United Kingdom Jews Against Zionism

       Mara Rivera United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Dr Brian Robinson United Kingdom Jews for Justice for Palestinians

       Penny Rosenwasser United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Richard Rubin United States Not In My Name

       George Salzman Mexico Univ of Massachusetts at Boston, Emeritus Prof

       Carol Sanders United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Ofer Setty Israel

       Cindy Shamban United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Lincoln Shlensky United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Nizza Siano Australia Jews Against the Occupation, Sydney

       Jonathan Sivan Israel

       Nick Slater United States None

       Joseph Stein United States Jewish Voice for Peace

       Dianna Stern United States Bay Area Women in Black

       Carol Stone Canada Jews for a Just Peace, Vancouver

       Faye Straus United States

       Inbar Tamari United Kingdom Jews Against Zionism

       Ornella Terracini Italy Ebrei contro l'Occupazione

       Ludwig Watzal Germany Journalist in Bonn

       Ruth Weill United States Peace Action Wisconsin

       Beth Weinberger United States

       Phil Weintraub United States

       Abraham Weizfeld Canada Jewish People's Liberation Organization (JPLO)

       Antonello Zecca Italy Giovani Comunisti

       David Zinder United States Not In My Name