Return to: Home | Culture | Books

Off the beaten track

Brian Dillon

Published 21 June 2007

In Praise of the Whip: a Cultural History of Arousal Niklaus Largier Zone Books, 526pp, £22.95

In a suburban Dublin school in the late 1970s, I caught the tail end, so to speak, of corporal punishment. Not that the good brothers made us bend over for our punishment, by then: we went home instead with hot, welted hands. But we had our suspicions about the more fervid among the floggers, not least the sweaty charmer who liked to warm the cane with a brisk rub of his crotch before he let fly. Something, we surmised, was up with this lot. Such at least, as Niklaus Largier's gripping history of flagellation confirms, is the easy modern assumption with regard to the switch, the rod and the birch. Flagellation is surely a sign of misdirected or repressed desire: its adherents (givers or receivers) must be, at best, just a little bit sad. But In Praise of the Whip tells another story: of ascetic and perverse imaginations that were liberated by a taste for the whip.

Largier begins with the practice of self-mortification that flourished in the monasteries of the Middle Ages. The idea that monkish beatings were simple proxies for suppressed urges only took hold, he notes, in the anticlerical 18th century. The concept of repressed sexuality cannot account for the symbolic vigour of the historical act, nor for the sincere belief on the part of pious self-flagellants that they were re-enacting the passion of Christ. "What a joyful, unique spectacle," wrote Peter Damian in the late 11th century, "if the heavenly judge looks down and man flogs himself to his depths for his shameful deeds." Flagellation was a kind of theatre, a drama with, quite possibly, only one spectator: the voyeur god whose unblurred vision took in the whole amazing and affecting scene. Performances were characterised with almost culinary care: beatings were served sec or sanglant.

Which is not to say that the elaborate whipping rituals concocted in Europe's cloisters were uncontroversial. Largier details the habits of celebrated flagellants such as Theresa of Avila, who rolled naked among thorns and beat herself with stinging nettles in a devotional practice known as urticatio. Rosa of Lima must have bristled with penitent paraphernalia: she stuck quills in her head, wore a crown of thorns and sewed needles into her hair shirt. But while such singular figures served to promulgate the notion of individual atonement, the vast processions of plague-fearing flagellants that turned up across the Continent in 1349 were a different matter. Church and civil authorities seem to have discerned that they were dealing with some unruly desires on the part of the faithful, and so began to legislate against the cowled, chanting, half-flayed enthusiasts of public flogging.

By the end of the 18th century, thanks to scurrilous legends of nymphomaniac nuns and priapic clergy, the medieval history of the whip was established as a stock trope of European pornography: the Marquis de Sade was only the most thorough in this regard. At the same time, the English had managed to acquire a reputation as Europe's most energetic algolagniacs, a celebrity too easily explained by the misty-red memory of public-school thrashings. In a bravura reading of the rod-loving writings of Swinburne, Largier argues that the muscular whacking the poet received regularly from a pair of prostitutes (to the point where it almost ruined him financially) was less a reminder of delicious schoolboy agonies and more an image of the rigours and rewards of literature itself. What is a whipping, asks Largier, if not precisely a rhythm, a particularly heightened experience of time?

Roland Barthes once wrote that what conventional moralists always miss about so-called perversions is a simple, not very furtive fact: they make people happy. In Praise of the Whip ends with Proust's Baron de Charlus getting himself whipped by sailors: "his desire to be chained and beaten betrayed, in its ugliness, a dream just as poetic as other men's desire to go to Venice or to keep a mistress". Largier's point, in this sedulously researched and (unsurprisingly) colourful volume, is that despite the supposed liberation of western sexuality in the last half-century, we still conceive of sex as split between its natural and unnatural impulses: a "healthy" sex life has simply supplanted a "normal" one. Worse, we see that very modern invention, sexuality, where it never was in the first place, thus radically reducing the repertoire of human fantasy to a few easily explicable compulsions. Which is in turn a way of stripping sex itself of all the odd dreams and desires it might contain.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

10 comments from readers

Paul Perry
23 June 2007 at 06:33

Most flagellants I have known seem to be acting under a compulsion, rather than having fun. I sometimes suspect that masochists are putting the punishment before the crime - they embrace the whip, because they would rather have both the punishment and the sin, rather than giving up both.

Wanda Dollgirl
23 June 2007 at 20:27

The last paragraph of this review is brilliant! As a phone sex operator, I catered to some astonishingly bizarre fetishes. However I may have felt about them, they did one thing--make my callers happy.

The true perverts may be those who have a compulsion to codify acceptable sexual behavior and label anything not on their short and unimaginative list deviant, engaged in only by pathetic individuals in need of psychotherapy.

ATR
23 June 2007 at 22:20

Serial killers are also made happy by their activities. Individual happiness that is not in the interests of society can be appraised on merely individual grounds only by those too ignorant to see the connection between the individual and the social. It makes sense that someone who is a phone sex provider (not generally the most educated portion of the population) would fail to see this.

joshstrike
24 June 2007 at 00:57

actually, uh, neat point: We switched from "deviant" vs. "acceptable" to "repressed" vs. "liberated" with a quick flick of the whip as it were, and in the process may have missed the whole point, that the very act of categorizing or naming a thing can ruin it. On the other hand, what of the great unreconciled fetish for naming and categorizing that so prevails among german and english-speaking peoples? To name or not to name; in the beginning there was the word...to be reviled at one's own pleasure. Puts the lie to the idea that the devil's the only one who tempts, doesn't it?

amki
24 June 2007 at 06:11

And it makes sense that someone (ATR responding above) would fail to see that the same phone sex provider whom he denigrates as ignorant is reading the same not-for-the-uneducated publication that he (or she) himself is reading - and doing so with a much more educated, open mind, I might add.

webmind
25 June 2007 at 01:47

Thanks, amki, for bringing attention to the obviously perverse thinking of ATR. Let me be a bit less politic. ATR is typical of those psychotic thinkers who conflate symbols to the point of rendering them meaningless. The effect on society of a serial killer is analogous in (what is surely) "his" twisted mind to a phone sex fantasy between consenting adults? Yea, and your fantasy is my reality is your fantasy. What really worries me is that ATR has all the symptoms of someone who is genuinely pathological - like a serial killer or child molester.

ADP
26 June 2007 at 01:59

For ATR to know that phone sex providers are not generally the most educated portion of the population, suggests that he has spoken to quite a few of them.

Andrew
26 June 2007 at 12:35

Let me get this straight: are most of you saying that just as long as something goes on between consenting adults, it's ok?

MissD
27 June 2007 at 06:49

In a word Andrew, YES! What if the majority decided tomorrow that whatever you like to do with your partner is morally wrong and should be stopped? Does that make it ok for them to take away your right to make your own choices as a grown adult? Freedom doesn't mean just freedom to do the things you enjoy but for others as well weather or not you like it or agree with it. Activities of serial killers and child molesters are not the activities of consenting adults. No one consents to murder or child abuse. It's not even in the same ball park so how that got compared to flogging is totally beyond me.

frank
29 June 2007 at 15:42

Consensual flogging is just a vigorous form of massage. We have evolved to endure a far greater degree of physical suffering than modern life requires of us. That dialectical process of evolution has also endowed our physiology with natural analgesics--which lie dormant in the absence of painful stimuli. So, if you've never volunteered to be spanked and caned, you've never been fully alive!

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Vote!

Should we build new nuclear power plants?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker