{"id":82,"date":"2016-06-30T16:47:32","date_gmt":"2016-06-30T16:47:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82"},"modified":"2022-03-13T10:32:29","modified_gmt":"2022-03-13T10:32:29","slug":"bondage-domination-and-the-erotics-of-brexit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82","title":{"rendered":"Bondage, Domination, and the Erotics of Brexit"},"content":{"rendered":"

I.
\nRenaming the Cosmos<\/b><\/p>\n

\n

No longer shall
\nyour name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the
\nancestor of a multitude of nations. <\/i>– NRSV<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The
\nnames we call the cosmos are given in the wrong time. Today the name
\n\u201cneoliberal\u201d rolls across snarled lips, lips hateful of the state of the world,
\nyet worldly wise. Yet the word speaks strangely little to those who use it:
\nuniversity graduates who never much knew the big state nor full employment. The
\nname which once described how the world would work as that big state was
\ndismantled and sold off points only to the status of its speaker. Its utterance
\nis the call of a jargonistic password to a specific social stratum. But as the
\nword points back towards the babbling speakers they fail also to notice that
\neven the name has become corrupt in the wrongness of its time. Despite its
\nprefix, what it described by neoliberalism is no forty years old, and what was
\n\u201cneo\u201d about this liberalism was always questionable. It differentiated itself
\nfrom the old, progressive classical liberalism not by its novelty but by its
\ndemand for a certain type of return to old ways, back beyond the aberration of
\nthe state monopolies into which classical liberalism had been transformed by
\nwar, crisis, and reaction.<\/p>\n

To gloss the pathetic expository
\npower of the term \u201cneoliberal\u201d has been done too often already, but the history
\nof another name is not normally considered. It was a century after the
\nbeginning of the industrial revolution that the word \u201ccapitalism\u201d would gain
\npopularity as the name for the social organisation of the epoch. This was in no
\nsmall measure the result of the work of the first generation of german
\nsociologists working at the turn of the century, and in particular the writings
\nof Werner Sombart and Max Weber. By the mid-1920s, amid German hyperinflation,
\nSombart would describe his present as \u201clate capitalism.\u201d This cosmos whose name
\nwas still so young, was itself aged. It seemed to be a social system in its senility.
\nDecrepit, demented, and losing control of itself it had spawned a world war,
\nrevolution, and crisis. <\/p>\n

Before the name \u201ccapitalism\u201d
\nbecame popular the preferred term was \u201cbourgeois society.\u201d In the untimeliness
\nof the names we use for the organization of the \u00a0world certain forces can be read. While some
\nof these forces might be jargonistic, defining admission to a social group, other
\nforces are historical. Even as the word \u201ccapitalism\u201d came to become an
\nall-encompassing term everything that existed \u2013 \u00a0just at the moment it seemed to be collapsing
\n\u2013 for that wave of German sociologists the term \u201cbourgeois society\u201d was still
\ncharged. For them its force was not the quality of jargon, but the weight of
\ncritique \u2013 \u00a0albeit a reformist one. It
\nwas perhaps less a weight than a recognition of distance: to this German
\nbourgeoisie society appeared as something strangely alien, to be studied like
\nnature. And only with study, and reasoned reform, might it be brought
\nappropriately close again to its bourgeois interpreters. <\/p>\n

This transformation from
\n\u201cbourgeois society\u201d to \u201ccapitalism\u201d, with its force of untimely names might
\nspeak of its own history, and the breakdown of the myths of the first
\nliberalism in the 19th<\/sup> century. It speaks of a transformation of a
\nworld apparently run by people, the bourgeoisie, to a world defined by their
\nproducts, capital. It was in the work of Marx, during that century of
\ntransformation, that this was most precisely diagnosed. At the very core of
\nMarx\u2019s analysis lies a claim about universality. The universality of the
\nbourgeois class proclaimed in its revolutions was false: it was not the case
\nthat all people would have a say, and that equality would prevail. Instead
\nthere were always the excluded: the landless and propertiless, women, slaves,
\nconvicts and debtors. And those excluded would turn out to be the majority. But
\nthe claim to universality made by the revolutionary bourgeoisie was not just a
\npiece of rhetorical bravura: there had been a new universality established, but
\nit was one of capital and not of the bourgeois class, who merely owned this
\nuniversal medium. Not only those excluded from owning it would be subject to
\nthe domination of capital; even the bourgeois class itself would discover
\nitself subject to its movements, as an alien social force, as alien as
\nindustrialism had made nature.<\/p>\n

The now old words \u201ccapitalism\u201d
\nand \u201csociety\u201d seem not so exciting any more. They hum along with a tone of
\n\u201cthat\u2019s just the way of the world.\u201d No-one would even think of them with names
\nof a cosmos. And so the force with which they are used ebbs away quietly, as
\nendless new names proliferate. It was in the pages of Women\u2019s Own<\/i>, the
\nchurn of the dentist\u2019s waiting room, that exactly a hundred years after T\u00f6nnies
\ninaugurated the new science of sociology with his investigation into this alien
\nrealm of reality \u2013 society \u2013 its end would be declared. \u201cThere is no such thing
\nas society\u201d, said Thatcher. Instead, for her, there existed just isolated
\nindividuals, families, small people with small interests. T\u00f6nnies other term,
\n\u201ccommunity\u201d could come to the fore. No more society, just advertising, as the
\ntheorists of the time would claim. But society had not disappeared, instead the
\nhistorical force of its distance had become so depleted that it was just to be
\naccepted, becoming once again unconscious.<\/p>\n

II. Brexit dominus domino meo<\/b><\/p>\n

\n

The little man in me aspires to
\nwin you over, as you are ordinarily won over with the tom-tom of leadership. I
\nam afraid of you when the little man in me dreams of \u201cleading you to freedom.\u201d
\nYou might discover yourself in me and me in yourself, take fright, and murder
\nyourself in me.<\/i>
\n– WR<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This
\nsetting out of sociological theory and the historical shifts of names can help
\nin a particular problem that permeated the referendum. For months the left (and
\nthe left is taken broadly here) has fought over positions: does it side with a
\n\u201cworking class\u201d \u2013 many of whom no longer work, or are un- or under-employed \u2013 that
\nexpresses racist and xenophobic attitudes, and which behaves en masse in perpetual
\nfear of invasion by foreigners; or does it stand against the attitudes of that
\nclass, and against its oppressive demands? <\/p>\n

Here the resurrection of old
\nnames might be made useful. Many have claimed that the vote to leave the EU was
\nfounded on \u201clegitimate grievances\u201d. And under this rubric stands a claim to
\nidentification of a genuinely popular position, or of real interests. More than
\nthis, it is claimed that this popular position is an authentically working
\nclass one. But this claim rests on a highly impoverished account of class.
\nClass here is not a relation, but a thing. It is not something that moves, but
\nsomething held fast under the gazes of the demographers. Today, though, it may
\nnot be as it was for the first sociologists, that society has to be held fast
\nin order to be examined. Instead society may, in its own history, have become
\nsomething utterly static and frozen.<\/p>\n

Yet the attempt to
\nfind the attitudes of the<\/i> class as a thing, as opposed to the dynamics
\nof class politics is hopeless. Beneath the confusions of a \u201cworking class\u201d
\nposition is a lack of thinking about domination. At all points the mode of
\nrelation between the classes is considered as one of playful antagonism. The
\nclasses appear in the reports wholly independent of each other, as though they
\nwere absolutely free wills attempting to outwit each other on a battlefield. It
\nseems to have long been forgotten that the relations in which they engage are
\nrelations of domination. Indeed, if the bourgeois character of society was once
\nproclaimed, it has today been entirely forgotten or silenced. It is forgotten
\nthat even if the bourgeoisie are not truly the universal subject of society,
\nthey remain the dominant class, the owners of capital, and the purchasers of
\nlabour. And while, as individuals they might not wholly consciously determine
\nwhat is produced (insofar as what is produced must be profitable as opposed to
\nbeing entirely arbitrary, and not all investments will pay off), the form<\/i>
\nof what is produced is founded on the dominant relations of bourgeoisie and
\ncapital. Proletarian production, indeed all production remains enslaved to
\nthese relations. All proletarian production and all proletarian expression is forced
\nthrough them. Enslavement and obedience to them is the very condition of survival
\nin this world. Meanwhile the use<\/i> of what is produced in our society
\nperpetually advances this domination. <\/p>\n

There is no such thing
\nas proletarian culture; only bourgeois culture with which, in utter terror,
\nproletarians are compelled to identify. Even the meagre products of the most
\noppressed are barely culture proper. The cry of the oppressed that calls out is
\nstill animalistic, its demand no more than one of self-preservation and
\nsurvival. Similarly there is no such thing as bourgeois culture that has not
\nbeen produced by the dominated labour of proletarians. There is no bourgeois
\nculture that does not cry out, in yet unheard glory, against the oppression in
\nits creation, and against the oppression it will further commit.<\/p>\n

The search for some
\n\u201cauthentic working class\u201d position, opinion, or idea in this world will forever
\nbe futile. The views of the working class always appear as distorted
\nexpressions, in the most useless moment of what is produced. The working class is
\ncompelled to speak in bourgeois form. This does not merely mean, though, that
\nthe voice is distorted, but more that it is compelled to speak in precisely the
\ntones of domination that cause its own distortion.<\/p>\n

III.
\nMass and Class<\/b><\/p>\n

\n

The sympathies of the masses,
\ntempered anew by a system of terror, are reawakening more lively than
\never.\u00a0<\/i>–
\nAB<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In
\nthe immediate aftermath of the referendum results a race took place to
\nestablish a putative class analysis of what had happened. Sociologists dusted
\noff their old ABC1C2DEs in order to establish firmly that \u201cthe working class\u201d
\nhad done something<\/i>. More like
\nLinnaeus or Cuvier studying the plants and animals they offered up a taxonomy
\nof social divisions and stratifications in order to deliver an explanation. In
\nthe moment of action the population had been held fast like a pinned out
\nspecimen. There was, it turned out, no movement, but only demography. This was
\nnot surprising insofar as no class action had taken place, or at least no
\ndisruption of the class system. Referenda are archetypes of a purely bourgeois
\npolitics, in which the polity is allowed to decide as apparently equal and
\nisolated individuals, each treated as bourgeois subjects par excellence. If the
\nclass analysis offered was one of frozen classes, this is because of the class
\nnature of this form of political expression.<\/p>\n

But the rush towards a class
\nanalysis masks another more prominent aspect of the politics that have
\nsurrounded the referendum: a silenced, or repressed mass politics. \u201cThe masses
\nare stupid\/barbarous\/violent\/brainwashed\/inert\u201d are the old slogans. To the
\nbourgeoisie the image of the masses has always been not only detestible but
\nterrifying. And most terrifying is the idea that it might find itself amid its
\npulsating throngs, discovering its own movements as contingent on the enormous,
\nyet bound, gestures of the crowd. It has for centuries attempted to give
\nexpression to its fear in a comparison between its own apparently refined
\nsensibilities (the mask of dominating violence with which they truly govern the
\nmasses) and the charged action of the masses. Meanwhile the mass has come to
\nknow this, and in a bourgeois society forever is forced deny its mass-character
\nin order to claim for itself refined sensibilities, hoping, like the
\nbourgeoisie, to disguise its own barbarised and barbarous state.<\/p>\n

The refined bourgeois individual
\nand the mass are the conjoined twins of capitalism, the struggling progeny of
\nbourgeois history. Just as the bourgeois was displaced by capital at the centre
\nof the cosmos, so at the periphery grows another power. If the particularity of
\nthe autonomy of the individual, still dominated by the contingency of capital,
\nstill only able to desire freedom in the form of profit, stands at one pole,
\nthen at the other stands the mass, as the cultic structure of the people as a
\nwhole conjured by the universality of the commodity. Along the axis between
\nthese poles – of bourgeois individual and mass – vibrate the egos of this
\nworld. At one end they are strong and yet incapable of effecting historical
\nchange, their desires attached only to profit, while their strength is expended
\non resignation to the endurance of the present state of things; at the other
\nend they are weak: the powerful erotics of the mass capable of changing the
\nworld are bound and perverted into servitude. One can read these figures in
\nterms of how the referendum has played out as well: on one side are the
\nGuardian-reading critics of ideology who believe they can never be convinced by
\nthe lies of the mass media. They gaze disdainfully of at the mass who are taken
\nin and act upon what they are told; yet the guardian readers are fundamentally
\npowerless, condemned only to ever interpret the world, to wistfully sneer, and
\nnever to change it. <\/p>\n

In the commentary around the
\nreferendum this division has been prominent. Every turn has centred on the
\n\u201cpatronising\u201d or \u201cbelittling\u201d of the mass of the population by a \u201cpolitical,
\nmetropolitan establishment.\u201d If once upon a time the bourgeoisie would bear its
\nterror at the mass in public, now any commentary at all is forbidden. This is
\nthe result of an attempt to separate these conjoined aspects of the bourgeois
\nworld into separate spheres of life. In politics one must act like the
\nbourgeois subject, but in the spheres of culture, of production, of media, of
\nconsumption, one must behave like a mass. The great frictions of the last weeks
\nin British politics has been less about some \u201cworking class anger\u201d than the
\nantagonisms of these two aspects of capitalist society – the bourgeois
\nindividual and the mass – and their cross-contamination in the referendum. The
\nrefined bourgeois character hates the fact that the result was governed by the
\nmovements of mass culture and media. The accusations that the masses brutal,
\nracist, and xenophobic are just post hoc moralising bywords for this hatred,
\nfrom a class that has already long proven its brutality, racism, and xenophobia.
\nThe bourgeois individuals clean up their own image for a moment and say, \u201cif
\nonly you were just like us,\u201d but fail to notice that the dominating force the
\nmass employed was just that. Nonetheless the mass follows suit and says, \u201cwe
\nthought about this really hard, we\u2019re not racist.\u201d The
\nmass postulates some “beyond” in thinking for the radio vox pop,
\ngiving the assurance that it wasn’t just voting out of totally base, xenophobic
\nfears. Yet they never get there. They try to say “I saw the other side but
\nreasoned it was wrong because of this and this and this” without ever
\ngetting to what the “this and this and this\u201d is. And so once again the
\nmass is suppressed, or repressed, and a ban is placed over discussing its
\nbehaviour.<\/p>\n

To address the erotics of the
\nmass, or the erotics of the masses, might seem undignified. But it remains the
\nonly means of putting the argument in a way that does not either scream in
\nterror like the refined bourgeois, nor forbid any discussion. Only in the
\nexamination of the mass\u2019s indignity might its dignity be returned to it. <\/p>\n

If the structure of the mass has
\nbeen forced into silence during the course of discussion, if bourgeois
\nrepulsion and terror has been hissed only where politeness can be safely
\nabandoned, it has reasserted itself in the wake of the mass\u2019s decision During
\nthe days after the referendum calls have come from all quarters not for a new
\nand different politics, but for \u201cbetter leadership\u201d. The old leaders have been
\ndeposed not because they failed to reconcile the divided polity, failed to
\nmediate between individual and society, or between the part and the whole,
\nbetween the bourgeois individual and the strenuous cultural demands of mass
\ndeindividuation, but because they simply weren\u2019t truly of the people, and could
\nnot bind and unify them correctly. The raging demand for endless new leaders is
\nthe hideous expression left of a muted and perverted mass politics.<\/p>\n

The demand for leadership, and of
\nleadership by one of its own, is the classical condition of the mass. In its
\nforlorn and barbarised condition, the mass has been well trained to despise own
\nheadlessness, for in its missing head is the promise of the ever transferable
\nmask of bourgeois refinement that conceals the force it knows so well. The good
\nleader of the mass is one the binds the community, that imagines and enforces
\nits limits. As Freud notes in his little book on mass psychology, \u201cthe group still wishes to be governed by unrestricted
\nforce; it has an extreme passion for authority; in Le Bon\u2019s phrase, it has a
\nthirst for obedience.\u201d<\/p>\n

Indeed the mass in capitalist
\nsociety is obsessed with its limits. Its identity is its self-bondage, founded
\non the exclusion of the other. The identification of the mass with the leader
\nis grounded in their shared approach to domination, and conceals the fact that
\nin the love of the leader the mass wants to know treated by him just as he (and
\nthey) would treat their enemies. It is archetypal of mass politics and mass
\npsychology that it would take as the moment of its self-bondage to be the
\nexclusion of the foreigner, alien, immigrant or refugee. In this sense the
\npolitics of the relationship to migration at stake in the referendum needs to
\nbe understood doubly: it is not merely the case that the exclusion of the
\nforeigner fulfills an economic role, enriching each member of the mass on the
\nbasis of a model of a resource- or job scarcity; but also the exclusion of the
\nforeigner plays an erotic role, in defining the bounds of the mass, and erotogenically
\nbinding together its members. The strength of the erotic bonds of the mass are
\nfounded on the strength of its collective exclusionary violence; the erotic
\nidentification with the mass is founded on the strength of violent
\ndisidentification from the other. There is no such thing as society; instead
\nonly community a community of little men. The national family, with Nigel
\nFarage or Boris Johnson sat at the head of table, their voices the blend of
\nevery bad joke a father ever told. Love him dearly. The figures of Farage and Johnson
\nare those of perverse leaders who reconcile the mass structure of the leader
\nwith the individuality of the bourgeois, who reconcile the mass media with
\nindividualised bourgeois politics.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0In these gestures of self-binding
\nand domination, the mass comes to know not just Johnson or Farage\u2019s body, but
\nalso its own body. It finds itself incorporated, ennervated, and excited. It
\ndiscovers both the pleasures of domination and the discomforts of submission.
\nBut more importantly it discovers their inversion: the discomfort of
\nrecognising ones own guilt without ever having the capacity to right wrongs,
\nand the pleasure of submitting willingly to authority who, as long as you are
\nobedient, will forgive you. It makes of them a perverse erotics, with capital
\nat its centre. Traditionally the body of this perverse erotics, capable of
\nstimulating and sublating these contradictory excitations, has been known as
\nthe nation state. <\/p>\n

In a video a woman from Burnley
\nsays \u201cI voted leave to stop the immigrants and to save the NHS.\u201d Quickly the
\ncountry\u2019s biggest employer is transformed from the guarantor of life through
\nthe provision of healthcare into the dream of the perverted mass that sees in
\nit a national corporation: a machinery that might adequately foster their
\nerotic energy. And all the better if it serves the lives only of the British.
\nThe NHS, in her dream \u2013 \u00a0although she may
\nnot notice it \u2013 \u00a0guarantees the health of
\nthe Brit insofar as it denies health to the immigrant. She probably calls this
\n\u201ceconomics.\u201d<\/p>\n

IV.
\nCatastrophe\u2019s horizon<\/b><\/p>\n

\n

The Messiah comes not only as the
\nredeemer, he comes also as the vanquisher of the Antichrist.<\/i> – WB<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

On
\nall sides the prospect of a catastrophic end of the world is drastically
\ndownplayed. There is no thought yet of a short and terrible reign of the
\nAntichrist, based on fear and self-interest, that could obliterate the world.
\nBut his first words have already been uttered. If the belief in progress of
\nthose who rule is impervious to real crisis upon crisis, then it finds its
\nmirror image in the zealots and dogmatists of the far left that see in every
\ncrisis the movements of revolution. It is clear that the result of the
\nreferendum stands against the interests of all of the European governments, and
\nlarge portions of British, European, and American capital. The progressives and
\nthe far left zealots are too quick to form out of the scenario inversions of
\nmanichaeism. For one side any movement against capital must be a good sign, for
\nthe other it is evil. Neither suspects that a horizon of action has arrived
\nthat may do away with the laissez-faire order, only to replace it with a
\nbolstered corporate, national one, that brings about not revolution but pure
\nadministered cruelty in the name of security, defense, and self-interest. Both
\nsides, blinded by wishful thinking, see only the frozen classes and not the
\nmoving mass. Neither sees the danger of the formation of a social body that
\nabsolutely combines domination and self-domination with pleasure. The dark
\nscene of the end of the world is a society collectively practicing auto-erotic
\nasphyxiation, wrapping its borders ever tighter around itself. It doesn\u2019t even
\nknow the day it accidentally goes too far.<\/p>\n

For capital the referendum result
\nis just a mistake, not a shifting of history. For the social democrats there
\nremains faith in the national provision of services. Yet dark spectres of
\nfascism are rising across Europe, in Austria, Hungary, Poland, Germany, France,
\nthe Netherlands, and Scandinavia. This spectre draws strength not only from the
\nproductivity of capital, but from a perverse erotics of the mass that might at
\ntimes subvert capital as it is forced into the mould of bourgeois politics. Both
\nsides willfully ignore wild fantasies of domination harboured by the terrified
\nand dominated. It is likely that in this case the cause will be averted, or
\nsubverted by the strength of centrist politicians. But it is unlikely that this
\nwill be the last we hear of it. Meanwhile, exhausted and impoverished, we can
\nbarely afford to take a liberal view of the end of things.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I. Renaming the Cosmos No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. – NRSV The names we call the cosmos are given in the wrong time. Today the name \u201cneoliberal\u201d rolls across snarled lips, lips hateful of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_eb_attr":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-essays"],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":6}},"yoast_head":"\nBondage, Domination, and the Erotics of Brexit - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bondage, Domination, and the Erotics of Brexit - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"I. Renaming the Cosmos No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. – NRSV The names we call the cosmos are given in the wrong time. Today the name \u201cneoliberal\u201d rolls across snarled lips, lips hateful of the […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jbardrosenberg\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jbardrosenberg\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-06-30T16:47:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-03-13T10:32:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@http:\/\/twitter.com\/prolapsarian\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@prolapsarian\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=82#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=82\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7\"},\"headline\":\"Bondage, Domination, and the Erotics of Brexit\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-06-30T16:47:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-03-13T10:32:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=82\"},\"wordCount\":3834,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Polemics and Essays\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=82#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=82\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=82\",\"name\":\"Bondage, Domination, and the Erotics of Brexit - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-06-30T16:47:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-03-13T10:32:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=82#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=82\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?p=82#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bondage, Domination, and the Erotics of Brexit\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\",\"description\":\"Babbler, Scrawler, Dialectician\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":[\"Person\",\"Organization\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7\",\"name\":\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1\",\"width\":300,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg\"},\"logo\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/03\\\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\",\"http:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/jbardrosenberg\",\"http:\\\/\\\/instagram.com\\\/prolapsarian\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/http:\\\/\\\/twitter.com\\\/prolapsarian\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jacobbr.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bondage, Domination, and the Erotics of Brexit - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bondage, Domination, and the Erotics of Brexit - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","og_description":"I. Renaming the Cosmos No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. – NRSV The names we call the cosmos are given in the wrong time. Today the name \u201cneoliberal\u201d rolls across snarled lips, lips hateful of the […]","og_url":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82","og_site_name":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","article_publisher":"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jbardrosenberg","article_author":"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jbardrosenberg","article_published_time":"2016-06-30T16:47:32+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-03-13T10:32:29+00:00","author":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@http:\/\/twitter.com\/prolapsarian","twitter_site":"@prolapsarian","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82"},"author":{"name":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#\/schema\/person\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7"},"headline":"Bondage, Domination, and the Erotics of Brexit","datePublished":"2016-06-30T16:47:32+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-13T10:32:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82"},"wordCount":3834,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#\/schema\/person\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7"},"articleSection":["Polemics and Essays"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82","url":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82","name":"Bondage, Domination, and the Erotics of Brexit - Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-06-30T16:47:32+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-13T10:32:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?p=82#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bondage, Domination, and the Erotics of Brexit"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/","name":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","description":"Babbler, Scrawler, Dialectician","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#\/schema\/person\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":["Person","Organization"],"@id":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/#\/schema\/person\/381cbef3d141c04291e3d5a8e81fb6c7","name":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jacobbr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jacobbr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jacobbr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1","width":300,"height":400,"caption":"Jacob Bard-Rosenberg"},"logo":{"@id":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jacobbr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/image0-1-2-e1646959330737.jpeg?fit=300%2C400&ssl=1"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/jacobbr.com","http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jbardrosenberg","http:\/\/instagram.com\/prolapsarian","https:\/\/x.com\/http:\/\/twitter.com\/prolapsarian"],"url":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/?author=1"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=82"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":668,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82\/revisions\/668"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=82"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=82"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jacobbr.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=82"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}