My Thoughts on The Agony of Eros

I just finished my 17th book of the summer, that being The Agony of Eros by Byung-Chul Han.

This was an interesting book. It was admittedly quite dense; I often found myself chewing on a sentence as if it were a very very well-done steak.

This book is formatted as a collection of essays with the overall theme being: Eros/love is dying, given that is not dead yet.

There were parts of this book that I strongly agree with. In the essay “Being Able Not to Be Able”, the effects of capitalism on both the self and eros as a whole is explored. Here are some quotes from this section that resonated with me:

“As an entrepreneur of the self, the achievement-subject is free insofar as he or she is not subjugated to a commanding and exploiting Other. However, the subject is still not really free because he or she now engages in self-exploitation–and does so of his or her own free will.” (9)

“Capitalism is eliminating otherness wholesale in order to subordinate everything to consumption” (16)

Having previously read a bit on postmodernity, I have had time to chew on the ideas that 1) capitalism is inhospitable to love and 2) our current society has replaced the once institutional/governmental responsibilities onto the shoulders of the individual, often unbeknownst to the individual. I like the way that these ideas are presented in this book, as I have in articles/books that they have appeared in before.

Another idea proposed by Han in this book is that a certain distance is required to fuel Eros. His thesis on the death of Eros is that there has been a distinct lack of “Otherness” in our perception of others. In other words, we are constantly attempting to catch a glimpse of ourselves in the eyes of another, much like Narcissus hovering over the pond (or at least trying to). He then goes on to say that this lack of Otherness in the Other is making the Other disappear completely rather than bring them closer to us. This point was actually what prompted me to purchase this book in the first place as it was an experience I had been trying to put my finger on for a long time.

On another note, I did not agree with the statement that “knowing” is the same as “possessing,” especially when it comes to love. I think to be loved is to be known and understood, and that does not equate to ownership. To truly know and understand another, I believe you must acknowledge their existence beyond your own.

Han’s thesis is rooted in the idea that the negative is vital to the experience of Eros:

“Today, love is positivized into a formula for enjoyment…It is free from the negativity of injury, assault, or crashing. To fall (in love) would already be too negative. Yet it is precisely such negativity that constitutes love” (13).

I thought this was interesting when considering the casual nature of many romantic/erotic relationships today. I do not think that there is anything wrong with a sexual/romantic/erotic relationship void of negativity, given that it is void of negativity for any parties involved. That is not an experience that I have had, nor do I believe it to be an experience that anyone I know has had. I think each and every human experience has both a positive and negative aspect to it, if you want to look at it that way. And to say that negativity constitutes love is not a statement I can get behind. Love includes negativity, as they are both human experiences, but negativity is not a defining factor for whether or not love exists. I would say that negativity is essential to the experience of desire as desire is born from lack. This is where stricter definitions of love and eros would have been useful, which is something that Han did not do, at least not with any finality. In fact, he used the terms love and Eros seemingly interchangeably throughout the book which was a decision that I was not thrilled about. While I believe that Eros is a kind of love, it is not love itself and should not be used interchangeably.

Overall, this book was quite interesting, though mighty inaccessible. For a book on Eros, reading this was perhaps the least erotic experience I have ever had. I am excited to re-read at some point with a fresh pair of eyes. I like realizing my thoughts on something have changed.