A Comparison of the Existentialism of Bataille to That of Camus and Sartre

Bataille’s account of restrictive and general economy shows us a world separated into the servile and the sovereign. The difference between servility and sovereignty is best shown in the relationship between sexuality and eroticism. Sexuality is servile in that it is a means to an end; the goal of sexuality is reproduction. To have sex to procreate is to be servile to the future. Eroticism, on the other hand, is based entirely in the present. It is the expenditure of all available energy with the only goal being pleasure or fulfillment of desire. In the first volume of The Accursed Share, Bataille uses economics to explain his particular brand of existentialism. His idea of sovereignty in terms of consumption and the general economy relate to the ideas of existentialist freedom of Sartre and Camus. On the other hand, Bataille’s idea of servility, in terms of restrictive economy (his opposite to the freedom of general economy) does not fit in so well with the opposites of freedom that Sartre and Camus propose.

Bataille’s restrictive economy is based on the idea of being economically servile, being a slave to the future. The servile man labors for the sake of the future, to prepare for the future. In effect, he is preparing for a temporary sovereignty in the future, as Bataille relates sovereignty to consumption. The servile man labors to earn money so he can buy goods and consume them. This restrictive economy is based on scarcity and necessity. Goods are scarce, otherwise the servile man could just take what he needed from an infinite supply. The servile man needs these goods for consumption, otherwise he would have no reason to labor for them. So because of scarcity and necessity--classical economic ideas which are now taken for granted in almost any discussion of economy--the servile man labors for the future, and will always be servile. Though he attempts to achieve sovereignty in his later consumption of his earnings, he is really only consuming to survive to labor more, so even in his consumption he is servile.

Sartre’s counterpart to Bataille’s servility is bad faith. It is only a counterpart by default, however, as they are both opposites to freedom, but are quite different other than that. Bad faith is rejecting responsibility for one’s actions, to say, “I ran away because I am a coward.” Sartre would contend that the coward makes a conscious value judgment concerning running away, that he values the outcome brought about by running away more than that brought about by any other possible action. Sartre’s personal choice is situated entirely in the present, while Bataille takes into account the idea of antecedent causal factors in one’s servility. Bataille seems to think more along the lines of an entire life spent in servility with little--if any--possibility of change. Bataille’s idea of servility as being a slave to the future compares to bad faith if we consider that the man who identifies himself as a coward will continue to act as coward in future even if his value judgments change. That is to say, he will be trapped in the role and forced to act as a coward because he identified himself as one. This is a weak comparison and it is safe to say that Bataille’s and Sarte’s ideas do not agree on this point of the opposite to freedom.

Camus’ opposite of freedom is hope. This is easier to relate to Bataille’s servility, though the relation is not perfect. Contingency is important to Camus; he embraces the idea that we cannot depend on the future, and he thinks hope, paired with the continual disappointment that contingency brings, is opposed to existentialist freedom. Hope, as Camus sees it, is a kind of slavery to the future, just as the servile man, by laboring, is a slave to the future. Bataille’s servile man hopes that he can be sovereign by consuming the fruits of his labor, but he will be constantly disappointed. The common element is looking forward to the future and being disappointed, but the form that the hope and disappointment take is different between the two.

Bataille’s general economy is based on the idea of consumption, of luxurious expenditure. Sovereignty comes by consuming without producing. This is based on the idea that systems, both natural and economic, have excess energy. This excess energy may be used for growth, but given limits of space--an environment cannot accommodate an infinitely growing system--growth must stop or at least slow down at some point. It is then that the question of how to use excess energy comes into play. In natural systems, excess energy can be given off as heat loss. But in human societies, the expenditure of excess energy is what defines a culture. In terms of individuals, it is those that do the expending that are sovereign. The sovereign individual consumes only, and is not concerned with scarcity, necessity, or utility. He has at his disposal the results of the servile man’s labor, he can consume what he wants, and he is not concerned with profit, for it is his job to waste. The sovereign is completely free of concerns about the future and lives only to consume in the present. Bataille also mentions the tendency for the sovereign to give gifts. In the example of the potlatch among the Northwest Coast Indians, the gift-giving is entirely wasteful, the giver does not necessarily give to those in need, he gives according to custom. The recipient is then obliged to give a greater gift, continuing the process of useless expenditure. However, Bataille also advocates gift-giving in terms of United States aid to India. He defends this giving of excess wealth to the impoverished by saying that it will satisfy the American need to expend, and will assist the Indian need to grow. Bataille recognizes that an economy must grow to the limits of its environment to have excess energy to expend, and he seems to think that U.S. aid to India kills these two birds with one stone. This appears to be concern for the future, which would make no sense for the U.S., a sovereign economy, but it does to the Indian economy--still a servile one concerned with growth. If we consider the U.S. to be concerned only with spending money, and not with where it goes, the idea of the sovereign gift-giver not thinking of the future but still giving to the impoverished will hold.

Bataille’s general economy and Sartre’s idea of existentialist freedom fit together well. According to Sartre, every decision is based on value judgments as to which outcome we prefer. This decision-making process is based entirely in the present and does not include concern for the future. This freedom is like sovereignty as Bataille sees it. Dedicating oneself to making value judgments in the present is like the sovereign who consumes whatever is available without concern for the future.

As with restrictive economy, Bataille’s general economy fits with the ideas of Camus better than those of Sartre. Camus is also concerned with the present, and his concept of contingency is that we cannot depend on the future to offer us what we want, that any number of unforeseen events could destroy plans we make. The sovereign man also refuses to look to the future, living only to consume in the present. To Camus, hope is slavery to something that may never come about, and to Bataille, working toward the future is slavery also.

Bataille has come up with his own particular kind of existentialism based on the dissipation of excess energy. His ideas about restrictive and general economy can be compared to the French existentialism of Sartre and Camus, but there are differences also. Neither Camus nor Sartre used the expenditure of excess energy as a defining point in their views on existentialism, and in that respect, they differ from Bataille. But all three emphasize the importance of living in the present and dedicating oneself to something. Bataille tells us what to dedicate ourselves to (expenditure of energy), though not how to do it; Camus and Sartre leave it all up personal choice.


Bibliography

Bataille, Georges. The Accursed Share, Volume I. New York: Zone Books, 1991.
Bataille, Georges. The Accursed Share, Volumes II & III. New York: Zone Books, 1993.
Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus. New York: Vintage Books, 1959.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. New York: Washington Square Press, 1956.