Sorrabamiento: a voluntary easement

in 1975 Michael Foucault publish Watch out and punish, a real gem straddling studies in criminology, law and philosophical speculation. In this essay he wondered how the technologies of power mutated throughout history. In his opinion, the Ancien Regime it was characterized by “punitivist” forms of power, namely torture and punishment. From the eighteenth century, however, there is a rupture, a bankruptcy: public and administrative institutions no longer seek to punish, but rather to reform and correct through “confinement”, “forced labor”, “internment”, that is, deprivation of liberty. The target of the architecture of power moves, therefore, from the body, to the soul. In line with this mutation, Foucault in said book would say: «punishment has gone from an art of unbearable sensations to an economy of suspended rights». So that at that time the Poor laws, Workhouses and the prisons did nothing but proliferate. However, this type of negative penalty does not interest us too much…

Later in the course of history, especially with the triumph of mass society and late capitalism, the French philosopher preferred to speak of discipline. The objective of disciplinary power is, therefore, a normalization of conduct; a technical transformation of individuals in adaptation to a norm: make normal men. Beyond the errors and successes in reading Foucault’s proposal, it is interesting to see how our societies –in the context of postmodernity– practice an ontological inversion between torture and discipline. In what sense?

The logical thing would be to think that currently the technical-scientific progress and the digital world allow the banishment –once and for all– of the punitive exercise of power. Although this, in reality, is not quite so. To be illustrative, I would like to focus on a specific form of torture (as a public and exemplary punishment).

At the end of the Late Middle Ages, a strange and bizarre word began to appear in popular Spanish Ballads and Songbooks: “surprise”. What the hell does it mean? According to the RAE, sorrabar is «Kiss an animal under the tail. It was an infamous punishment that was formerly imposed on dog thieves»although it also recognizes a second meaning «Pray with submission». Well, as we said in various texts such as the Cancionero de Lope de Stúñiga or the Romance de Juan de Salinas of 1585, this practice is mentioned:

«Necessity forces the most helpless name, which is from Marirrabadilla. // To surprise others, who thus call when begging and asking with submission».

To give another later example, the Dictionary of Authorities:

«If they take him with some furted dog, let him be fooled, let him return the dog to its owner».

But what do we care about this? They will think… Paradoxically, a servile and submissive mentality towards animals has been activated today. These “anti-speciesist” discourses – the vast majority of which come from progressive American universities – combine a covert misanthropy with an open cult of non-human life forms. There is a crusade from the progressive ranks against the human, and more particularly, against the seat of the human: the family. Perhaps this is due to the weakness of character, the lack of commitment and responsibility, the triumph of liquid relationships, rampant narcissism and, above all, our generation’s inability to suffer. It seems unbelievable that Quique Peinado, Henar Álvarez, Irene Montero, on duty (all of them fathers and mothers), are the standard-bearers of the crusade against the family institution. They are so adamist, they forget that their rabid slogans were already defended by the proto-fascist futurists of the early 20th century…

In 1910, the founder of this artistic avant-garde, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti wrote: «We will see disappear in this way not only the love for the woman-wife and for the loving woman, but also the love for the mother, the main bond of the family, and as such, eternal hindrance for the daring creation of the future man. Once free from the family, this stifler of all ideal fire (…) humanity will easily triumph over the double filial and maternal love, those two comforting but harmful loves, sweet chains that must be destroyed…». The woke commentators, collaborators, podcasters and columnists also have as a political project to free themselves from the family, a sweet chain that must be destroyed.

Likewise, this mob of middling leftists advocates “free love” and, beyond the profound contradiction that this expression entails, since love requires freedom as a precondition, most of the time it is used as a euphemism for “selfishness”. libertine”. Marinetti was also a clear defender of it. In his words: “Given this, we find effective, for the time being, the propaganda in favor of free love, which breaks up the family and accelerates its destruction.” And, as if this were not enough, Marinetti spoke about the harmful myth of “romantic love” against which feminist academics and opinion leaders still charge so much: “Immense romantic love will be reduced to simple intercourse for the preservation of the species.”

But, not content with it, Now they want us to believe that the substitution of the birth rate for the whim of pets is a real liberation. In such a way that both the DNI for animals and this Bill open the door to various bizarre events such as the sorrabamiento in the Middle Ages. Well, notice that Marinetti also dedicated some lucid words to this issue!: «To the most passionate young people I advise affection for animals -horses, cats, dogs-, because this affection can fill their need for affection in a normal way ». They want us to be left alone, as operating monads in the interests of the owners of the world. Cannon fodder and self-absorbed workforce.

And this is how an ontological inversion of the torture to the discipline is produced. As the nihilistic steamroller has installed itself in the very heart of unique thought, manufacturing normal men and women, we see how, using the gradual dehumanization and deification and idolatry of animals, plants and Pachamama, of course, in a game of sleight of hand, they change our children for dogs, the family for co-parenting and human dignity for false self-love.

Etienne of La Boetie in his mythical “Speech” he foreshadowed “voluntary servitude”. Today, irrationalist antispeciesism in its visceral war against the family pushes us to “voluntary straying” by not recognizing any hierarchy between species.

Whoever does not place Man above the animal is either a madman or a psychopath, in any case, and, clearly, a danger to society. We have agreed to kneel (ordeal) to publicly lick our animals under the tail, without having committed any crime. We have become submissive and asking our masters (discipline) to please, since they do not allow us to be happy, let us at least have a puppy.

Sorrabamiento: a voluntary easement