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