Общественный договор - жертвоприношение? Жорж Батай и критика "Левиафана"

Abstract

This article examines the critique of social contract theory in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan through the lens of Georges Bataille's notion of sacrifice. Bataille and Hobbes share several key motifs, including death, violence and sovereignty. However, they interpret these motifs in different ways. Hobbes rationalises these concepts by introducing the concept of the social contract, whereby individuals relinquish their freedom in exchange for security. For him, the state is a means of protecting people's lives through rational submission to the social contract. In contrast, Bataille emphasises the role of the irrational and the sacred, viewing them as a means of liberation from the fear of death, the material world and domination. Sacrifice plays a pivotal role in Bataille's philosophy, serving as a conduit to the sacred and a unifying force within communities through shared experiences of loss and sacrifice. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that over time, the significance of sacrifice has increased in terms of utilitarian value, while its intrinsic value as an act of gratuitous giving for the sake of affirming the "fertility of life" has diminished. Hobbes's social contract can be presented in basic terms as the sacrifice of a good for the sake of exchanging it for another good. This is exemplified by the exchange of the right to liberty for protection from the sovereign. For both Hobbes and Bataille, the fear of death is the rationale behind the relinquishment of freedom and the introduction of prohibitions. But Bataille, unlike Hobbes, proposes to build society not on the fear of death, but on overcoming this fear and sovereign rejection - the rejection of both one's freedom and the transfer of it to someone else. Thus, reading Leviathan through Bataille's logic helps to debunk the image of the sovereign as a mortal god and omnipotent protector.