Emily Rogers

�Anal Capitalism” by Kaja Silverman and Harun Farocki

 

In “Anal Capitalism,” Silverman and Farocki propose a unique system of values with which to interpret Godard’s film, Weekend (1967). This system, for which the article is named, is the equalization of the genders through a simultaneous reduction of the human being to, essentially, a piece of excrement. The authors argue that through the excessive capitalism of the modern age, all goods have been equalized by the power of gold in the market. Late capitalism has gone so far, they write, that human beings have also become commoditized, but in order for them to exist as part of the market, they too must be valued equal to the “great equalizer,” gold, against which all other market goods are measured. Since equality privileges sameness rather than individualism, a similarity between the genders must be emphasized to create this egalitarianism. Weekend focuses on the physical manifestations of capitalism, so a physical similarity between the sexes is chosen from which to derive this equality: the anus. Through repeated emphasis of the anus as the dominant sexual organ, thus deprivileging the patriarchal phallus, the film sets up this anality.

 

Silverman and Farocki see Weekend as Godard’s dystopian vision of the price of excessive capitalism.  Godard paints all the film’s subjects as goods, including the film’s own temporality (ie. “time is money”). It is the pursuit of these goods that has maddened and dehumanized the characters in this film, and this unrelenting avarice in turn robs them of their individuality. In the pivotal traffic jam scene, all the characters are made equal by their shared desire for the commodity of time. By desiring this good for themselves only, they inherently deny it to their fellow commuters. It is through the attainment of goods that these capitalist beings assert their singularity, though it is only through the denial of this same singularity to others that is becomes available for their own personal consumption. Silverman and Farocki liken this essential struggle of capitalism to the maxim of the French Revolution, “liberty, fraternity, equality.” These terms, Godard seems to suggest, cannot exist independent of one another. In his nightmare scenario, liberty can only be acquired through the denial of that good to someone else. The characters here have already obtained equality, yet it is characterized as the stripping away of all distinctiveness, including gender, in a process of human commodification. These characters ignore the third and final tenet of the revolutionary cry, fraternity, which the authors argue is the key to the movement away from the nightmarish world of anal capitalism.

 

Godard illustrates two alternatives to this dystopian anal capitalism: the attempt to make sacred that which late capitalism has stripped of value, and nature itself, existing outside of the commoditized modern world. This first alternative manifests itself in the film as cannibals attempting to restore a sacred value to human beings by ritualizing their consumption. However, Godard presents this as an unreasonable alternative, because the cannibals exist within their own capitalist system, treating their captives as goods for exchange between tribes. This ultimate reliance upon capitalism instills this cannibalistic rebellion with futility. The second alternative to capitalist dominance is nature itself, which is omnipresent on the outskirts of the film’s central conflict, presenting an immobile and steadfast resistance to the inferno of the traffic jam, the inferno of this anal capitalism. It is predates and will outlast all the tangible commodities for which the characters in the film yearn. Unlike these commodities, nature’s value does not diminish through its use, eventually becoming garbage, or excrement like all goods, even this film.

 

Questions: