The Mythology of Darren Aronofsky's "mother!"


Hello. I like your text. I am finishing a book by Peter Sloterdijk called Foams and some of his ideas made me think a lot. I may be wrong, but I think the film has a strong religious influence, but not only that. If we go to part of the mother’s pregnancy, she would be is “Reign is to serve”. Hence, Barden is so welcoming in the house (New Testament). This motto was officially adopted by the Catholic Church as the Christian’s mission. It consists of the Catholic catechism. It comes directly from the teaching of Jesus, particularly from the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus as King did not come to be served, but to serve. Hence, Barden needs both the worship of Lawrence and others because the “divine creation” (the men) are killing the mother-nature, Gaia of the Greeks, the tree of life (as a fruitfulness of fruits sowing the earth for creation and immortality and then the baby - Jesus) and Yggdrasil of the Norse. The point is not what God can do for me, but what can I do for God? To think that a God without fulfillment does not make sense. Worship can be, let us say, the animation of God. If Sloterdijk fills the bubble with air as an autogenous receptacle, God works the same way. While Barden has the work of creating-writing (what appears to be the bible as the new testament), the mother, the caring and giving inner order in the house. Something common in human relations where women are “house” and “in” beings. Just see the initial human utensils (bow and arrow for men, spoon and fire in the cave for woman). It is as if mother nature could always reinvent and transform herself [1] (a work of design and re-design), but man does not let it. The earliest gods are more than liberated souls, which are a private revenge; they are amalgams of dead souls and anonymous forces in which they are evoked as worship. The God of the Old Testament Yahweh (Yahweh) presents himself as a god with the greatest transcendence of the West. The monotheistic God with patriarchal depressed, suspicious, unbalanced and furious. This way of being strikes those who belong to your circle. The fundamental biblical word for him is to bless, for the one affected by the blessing was always aware that it could indeed be a curse. It is enough to see that the biblical world is a realm of the ethics of differentiation and does not tolerate excessive resemblances. At least not those between an all-powerful god and all-powerful humanity. Therefore, the dispersion of Babel is not so well motivated. It takes a kind of antimimetic measure, an act of becoming dissimilar, which amounts to a political castration of the species.

In this way, mankind appears with a virulent spectrum that must be humbled by the fall into plurality. The archaic Zeus itself presents itself with cholera characteristics, a paranoid power with its rays. In both, it is possible to see a natural violence. And the way of governing of both is largely by an interventionism. The biblical Lord, therefore, is not only a sadist-diffusionist who does not want to allow one to meet who belongs, he is also, and still more, a Lord of discretion, who disperses and separates what was aggrieved in a harmful way. Nature as a rule has always been bad enough with humans to deserve their evil. We have the legend of the Olympians’ fight against the giants that was conjured to attack the sky in order to avenge their brothers (the Titans) banished to Tartarus. In the last battles, the giants pursued by the Olympians fought back retreating to the earth when a throwing of fragments of rocks that had finished making islands began. It is clear that this fable is quite significant, since in it we can see that the islands work for the gods like tombs or sarcophagi of enemies and giants and are projects and effects of launches from the top and consequently the result of an action of the practice. It is not only the sea that can be an insulating and insulating element. Actions of the heavens can produce islands. In the Latin tradition, there is a beautiful image of nature held not as a mother but as a stepmother. So it’s not Marca, and yes, Noverca. Nature as a stepmother is regarded as the archetype of thought about the stranger of men, an ancient image from the romantics. With this, the Germans have a symbolic debt to bear on this issue: ecology has always been a metastasis of German idealism. The first German Romanticism in the early nineteenth century had a repressed aspect of stepmother who was replaced by an ideological figure of mother. The men in the movie always go into the house and mess things up, they create terror, disorder [2].

So she is so helpful in the house (after the fire she did it all again, she managed to turn that black matter into a new house) and Barden feeds on that love for creation. That is why Lawrence says “you do not love me. You love my love for you” (probably alluding to the Old Testament God and the fanaticism of pop culture). Monotheisms have strong doctrines in books of worship, zeal, prayer and preaching where religion is almost a physical education and needs to be exercised. But then she ends up with a black heart and withered by the death of her son (the end of love and hope), but deep down she keeps love in her heart and God rescues it to create the precious stone, a diamond. love within and man). Hence comes the sacrifice of the helpless, the child (Jesus) to forgive the enemies, not to fight back that is very present. The idea of ​​"scapegoat" is one of them. It is an expedient found in biblical Jewish culture. René Girard shows that the great “leaders and leaders” were good social psychologists and soon realized the power of contagion of violence, and the mechanisms to make it deviate. Everything then leads to the idea of ​​not retaliating. Violence is easily channeled into a single element, preferably a fragile element. The most fragile allows to be attacked by all, and do not have important relatives, nor family for the future reversal, this allows everyone the satisfaction of being, at some level, “aggressors” for peace. We can also see the Lord’s Supper (where there are no hierarchies, but horizontality of Jesus and the common people) and Eucharist (renewal and transformation is always done in an interior. in yourself by eating the wafer which is the body of Christ which in the film people practice cannibalism.) It is to remain at the disposal of others as a true complement to this other (a companion). idiotic of Jesus is a noble haughtiness towards others without any angels. The idiotic behaves less himself than the double of himself, and consequently, the intimate complement of every other that appears in the way. In that case a placenta therefore offers everyone on its way a friendly shoulder that functions as an intrauterine pillow, that is, an experience of closeness-intimacy. A kind of sphere with an immemorial link that creates among people who are looking for an opening as the fetus-placenta for the first time. The “giving birth” means rather being in an environment without light, our home, the womb. Cultures will not talk about blood ties, family trees, and will celebrate communion or alliances almost “remembering” fellowship in the liquid, and will do so, not for nothing, with baths and drinks. Baptized in the water and interlacing parties by means of common drink (wine) and in the wedding ring. Referring to the amniotic fluid (so when the son of Adam died they gave gifts). God in the movie is like he’s a writer with a blank page and when he goes wrong a job rips and kneads the sheet to start over. The imperfection of man may not be corrected. Its genesis is for the uncontrolled, a design, but not a creation. And this is done with air, with fire and with water (Genesis 7). Start from scratch or try. There is even a scene with a flood at the end of the funeral scene in the movie as you mentioned. And soon after Mother becomes angry and angry, expelling everyone there especially when they are on top of the sink.

If we take the myth of the flood we will see that the construction of the ark is clearly a break with matriarchal illusionism [3]. An absolute floating house, where the flood provided a beginning of a second chain of life. The Old Testament episode manifests a building of a house that can lead to salvation in the face of a watery disaster. The house doubles as a floating island. Where, for the first time, the endosphere of the old nature is completely eliminated and presented as a completely artificially constructed interior. In Genesis 8:17 we have "All the beast that is with thee, of all flesh, and of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, bring it forth with thee; and multiply the earth, and multiply, and multiply upon the earth. " A realization that the house seated in itself and for itself as an ark has a relation with nature. After the flood as an annihilating crisis, nature would be placed as a new foundation between God and the living being. A covenant to avoid the worst as seen in Genesis 9:11 "And I will establish my covenant with you, that all flesh shall not be destroyed by the waters of the flood, and that there shall be no more deluge, to destroy the earth." in Genesis 9:12 "And God said, This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you, and between all the living soul which is with you for everlasting generations" and Genesis 9:13 clouds; this shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. " The episode can also be read as a farewell ad. The right of human residence in the original grant was frustrated of the natural existence of man and that only with a new formation, a new base or a new settlement-ground formation of alliance between God and mankind after Noah (Darren Aronofsky directed the film called Noah, but I still have not watched). We could say that this "covenant" made with Noah was the first version of a "natural contract". An inclusion of the natural in a legal protective sphere (human and divine) where without a contract of exclusion of the flood no monotheism would be possible. Later in the accounts of the Tower of Babel in Jewish traditions we would have a meaning that the construction of the tower would articulate a political "human condition" in times of empire and great civilizations, something like a repetition of the myth of the expulsion of paradise from the political arena.

As a myth and full of symbolism, the ark is not so much a structural material and not even an empirical proof. It is more of a symbolic form of conviviality of the life rescued. We should read the Bible as a poetic and mythological narrative. The ark is an autogenic receptacle of hope over the waters. It is an autopoietic and self-sealing float where allies in hope and inland enjoy a privilege of immunity. A formal ethnopoietic idea as the principle of immunity, the fruit of a theological alliance where to leave the rescue vessel would be the same as a self-destruction. The vessel never left the Jewish traditions. In this age, to be Jewish meant to suffer under empires, to peer between empires or to seek the protection of one, without power or to elect an empire of its own. Noah’s maritime vehicle would have to continue his journey of salvation. First, as the ark of Abraham, with the constitution of an elective covenant between God and the circumcised peoples, in a period after Egypt, it would be a way like the ark of Moses, now populated only by the people of the exodus, Israel that had abandoned the camaraderie with other peoples to float through time as “chosen people” (Shabbat and the Law). In the apocalypse of Judaism, it was rebuilt as the ark of Christ (wafer and cross). An installation of a self-conviviality community in an endogenously enclosed envelope as we see in Genesis 6:14, “Make for yourself an ark of gofer wood; you shall make bins in the ark, and sprinkle it with bitumen inside and out. " The materialization of a chosen vehicle for the few. For a waterless ark that now lands in the ground we call the city, as a prototype of a surrealism craft of self-reference and the pragmatism of attachment to the ground. With a fusion of these two elements, city and state have developed a machine of morphological and political force throughout history. The cohabitation behind walls, walls, walls, caves and temples seems to be an omnipresent spatial form, but it keeps a spherical secret. The success of the macroesphorological (universal-historical) architectural form: city. Universal history is the history of the city human being. Peoples, religions, states, regulations, elections, art and sciences spring from a proto-phenomenon of human existence: the city. Religion was one of the first man-made immune systems. The ambition of the Spheres project as a whole is to fill the contours of a general immunology. The word “immunology” is a metaphor borrowed by military, biologists and lawyers.
Sloterdijk extends the concept of “immunis” (which in Latin means “free of duties”) to the religious dimension. While for Niklas Luhmann the legal system would be the immune system of the social system, spherology claims that religion is the original immune system of society. This is plausible if we consider, for example, that law and law were almost everywhere initially codified in religious forms, and only separated from them at a later stage of social evolution which was sometimes called the “wall of the law”. Man is the only animal that has a mother and tries to replace exo-uterus outside a cave like the caves, the State, the Earth and apartments as a sphere, a shield of protection because all exterior is chaotic and in that outside man cannot live, then the sphere (bubble) only increases and increases. But what is the question of justice or the emergence of civilization? You may have all the arguments against incest, but it is not a crime, at least not in Brazil. There is something called the incest taboo. If there were not, Freud would not have been able to make his theory about the emergence of civilization and, finally, about its inherent malaise. But between a practice being morally vetoed and being a crime, there is a long distance. What people confuse is that the law does not allow (marriage) between mother-father and son. And this has connection with ethics. It is our ethos as to the practices that ground the right of inheritance that raise our heads in this case. The rule of civil law does not know how to deal with a family in which the heirs are children and at the same time grandchildren. And mother x child relationship does not mean having a child either. It works like this: before there was the clan chief, his sons and his wives. He was the great father, only the lands, the best of food, and the women, including the ones he himself had generated. Without land, without the best food and without women, the children planned their father’s death and they did. After that, came the blame, around the construction of the totem which then soon represented more than this: that no one else has the possession of women only for themselves, to prohibit incest. Came the prohibition or taboo of incest. It made the law above individuals. It created a collective moral rule, a possibility of civilization. An ethics. But before the notion of thymos that Sloterdijk says, we can go forward.

This narrative of Freud for the birth of civilization has its complement in the individual through the Oedipus Complex. The dispute of the son by the possession of the father does it revolt against this one, that frights him with the possibility of the castration. At a given moment, this child performs, in individual terms, the step that the collective has taken around the going to the moral law: the mother’s love is in fact impossible, forbidden, what to do then is to get another woman. How can there be civilization and deliverance from castration if all the women say from your neighborhood are either your mother, stepmother or your sisters? In the recent work of Judith Butler we see that Freudian theory, it may be said, is the question of identification the nebulous point. Why is there identification to one side or the other? In Freud’s scheme, identification with the father or mother directs the sexual desire. And Freud implies that identification depends on a certain “predisposition”. Trying to escape this appeal to a “predisposition,” Butler refuses to desire, simply so, as something “primordial” which, a posteriori, is channeled through unidentified identifications. It addresses the critique of Freudian theory by questioning the original primacy of the incest taboo, the basis of Freud’s family and civilizational formation.

She postulates a taboo of homosexuality as prior to the taboo of incest. Thus, gender and sex formation are due to prohibitions and responses to prohibitions, but it is not the prohibition of incest, but the prohibition of homosexuality. What is at the basis of sexuality - and even gender identity - is therefore the primitive homosexual desire, which is forbidden. Butler points out that the loss of the taboo of incest, in a heterosexual-normalized culture, can win a grieving process. The loss is accepted. In a heterosexual culture one can accept not to have the mother and the sisters, exchanging them, finally, for other women. But if the taboo of homosexuality precedes the taboo of incest, everything is different. If the taboo of homosexuality founds its own culture as a “normal” culture, there is no chance for mourning, and there is only one way left: melancholy. Butler reads Freud critically and positively at the same time, especially the essays The self and the id and Mourning and melancholy. From Freud’s words, he constructs the idea that the loss of an investment object from the libido goes through a process of melancholy to be referred as bearable. The mourner accepts the loss, but the melancholic does not accept it easily (the real or imaginary loss) and identifies with the lost object, internalizing its aspects or behavior. Freud, according to Butler, sees such a situation not only as a formative element of “character,” but also of the self in its gender identity.

However, with the validity of the taboo of incest and the fear of castration involved in the Oedipus complex, the internalizations and identifications are strangely aligned: the boy identifies himself with his father from a strange power of distinction: he discards mother, the object of love, but also renounces bisexuality or homosexuality, adhering to a supposed heterosexual behavior of the father. Butler says that Freud realizes this problem, and then, embarrassed, makes use of the idea that such a thing is done on account of “primary” “feminine” and “masculine” predispositions. Butler says, by what elements or characteristics what is “masculine” would be the act of abandoning the object of desire (mother) and also a possible homosexual desire (love for the father). Butler insists, then, that the whole problem is that perhaps in advance of the taboo of incest, it is worth a taboo of homosexuality. Thus, castration in the Oedipal process would not come from the father’s fear, specifically, but from the fear generally of becoming feminine, in a culture already tendentiously normalized as heterosexual. Under these conditions, the postulation of the taboo of homosexuality is not the heterosexual desire for the mother who needs to be repressed, punished and sublimated, but the homosexual investment that demands the already culturally sanctioned norm of heterosexuality. Let us say that Butler inserts the taboo of homosexuality as prior to the taboo of incest by perceiving Freud’s hesitancy in speaking of “predispositions” “to the feminine” and to the “masculine.” Much as Butler disagrees, one cannot deny that his reading of Freud is what one expects of one philosopher to read the other: a search in between lines so as to understand the philosopher read beyond what he himself understood. Still following this line, Butler affirms that “predispositions” are thus made by the taboo of homosexuality and at the same time become part of the superego, of social norms, in a way to hide its formative history and present heterosexuality as the basic fact, which is then read as a natural fact. One can keep Freud alive, but to undo naturalism a good remedy is to resort to Foucault to note in the formation of discourses the very formation of normativity, removing it from the natural field and establishing it in the cultural field. Of course, this is useful if the cultural field, as constructed, is not made universal and not contingent, as was the case with the concept of patriarchy already repetitive and boring within feminist theory.

The collective moral rule is then obeyed, taken as “logic”, the strength of the father is now introduced and psychically introjected by the individual. It generates something like an “unconscious self” above the “I”, a “super”, a superego. Something like “the moral law in me,” without my full awareness of oedipal desires. The beginnings of justice are established there. It compresses and annuls desire for in return to gain civility and civilization. A civilization thus puts its initial terms to be civilization, that is, it generates an ethos, the possibility of an ethics, a rule of determined collective conduct, and has jointly its typical individual in possession of a moral, that is, the civilized is a personality adapted and able to live under rules, since he knows for himself how the moral imperative is in his chest. Sloterdijk gives us a break in this theme, therefore, we must see that not only man lives but libido sufficiency. The desire for justice may have been born even before we are a community, a tribe or society. The desire for justice appears as a function of a situation of need that, by destiny and indication, had to have occurred, mothers should not have collapsed. “Catastrophe of neolithic mothers [4],” says Peter Slotedijk, should not have occurred, but the structure of the “Neolithic revolution,” the agrarian way of life, imposed a certain richness and lack, and a thirst for adjustment and justice. Thus, we can think of the idea of ​​justice beyond mere revenge and the Oedipus Complex or even as in the modern sense, and internally containing the elements before the solidarity rather than oppression. Rather pampering, comfort, abundance than blood. One of the most significant ancient accounts of the birth of civilization is Cain and Abel. It’s the second episode of Genesis. There is no father to be killed in, of course. Less still mother ownership or Oedipus Complex. In this episode of the Bible the great crime is not that of envy, as is often said, and this is because the God of the Old Testament is not a moral God. The episode is an account and the feeling of having to fight against injustice. It is a passage about God being destiny in a quasi-cosmological way and without a moralization of the Bible (especially the Old Testament). The passage functions as a mere description of a world that walks by one’s own legs. If in Spheres II: Globes Sloterdijk puts Fortune as a goddess who turns her wheel in spherical form, we must interpret this as a randomness of opportunities by means of globalization. The wheel rotates following the rotation of the earth. Let’s say “the rules of the game” are the same for everyone. If we think about Poker, we will see that there is no vice, there is no preference of the dealer for a player. The scrambling of the cards made free of external factors, if you are going to get good or bad cards there is the work of destiny or God. We have a passage from Luke (6: 20-26) that Jesus tells us, saying that those who have nothing should rejoice, for they will be satisfied, and those who are suffering will receive the lack. It is clear that anyone who has not, cannot lose, can only win (or stay as is), and who has only can lose (or stay as is). The same logic as the account of Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel. With that, he removes from his sight that which shows what he cannot see: deserving is not within the scope of the world plan. Here is the lesson: those who offer their days may get nothing in return, at least not what they expect. There is no merit, only fate. The same case of Jesus on the cross. God or Destiny chose Abel because he had done nothing by his own hands, only to have followed the course of life. We have almost a love-fati there of Nietzsche. God establishes hierarchies because he is God. No matter the merit or sacrifices in his name. God is the Cosmos, it is Nature, it is the Principle that does not do things by a kind of meritocracy. The so-called “God writes right by crooked lines.” It reveals a world of God and a world of Jesus. One from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. The word of hope of Jesus (and of hopelessness for some) may simply be nothing more than a mere banality of ascertaining things “as they are”, routine, subject to causality ruled by chance. A kind of wheel that turns without control and without vices where all are thrown to their fate, because God does not reward anyone because that would be to follow a human and worldly rule. God is not under the aegis of time like Jesus in suffering. Nothing more. But if it is so, and we go to Jesus, will it be if he did not say anything? Did not you get a message? Now, but is not that so, the warning of causality under chance a great message?

In a possible insulation, antropotecnics Sloterdijk uses in his work, we have the hole that opens between brothers by the mime of the most powerful or the first. He who cries more or more, gains more attention and advantages. One is somewhat preferred and another preferred. One comes first in the thought and heart of the mother or father. And powerful, in this case, may be a father figure, that of God, but anthropologically, we know, no one is more powerful to the child of the neolithic than the mother - as we understand very well today. Mothers and children are almost inseparable. We are sociable and loving beings. The source of our solidarity and empathy cannot be destroyed, it is in our constitution. This marries perfectly with the notion of bastardy which is a term for describing processes of drastic changes with ruptures of lineages. After all, changes are parades. This is something that is presupposed in premodern projects, which indicated the advent of individual life. Francis of Assisi was not the only one who decided to follow this life. The "imitators of Christ" became a common thing and practiced by many. Young people ended up bonding with their families and went to monasteries, deserts, islands, etc., isolated themselves to live like Jesus, in the simplicity of a life. We would have the emergence of the modern individual. We have an individual without possessions. Someone who abandoned everything to be transformed. We see this in 1 Corinthians 1:11: "Become imitators, as I am of Christ." The humility of Jesus was a way to be followed also in the individuality. With parental disfellowshipping, there would only be one other possible father, God. Vertical initiation was the surrogate father, so the individual would not live in heaven, but in hell, in life more without luxury and in a condition of almost misery. Children who do not want to repeat their parents end up tearing apart. They deny traditions, so they must change behaviors, change a status quo, be a subject of practice, be a subject of paradigm shift. It is a true exit from the passive life and the state of contemplation. To cultivate behavior is to foster changes through acts of courage, bravery, and ruptures. Jesus was one of a kind with his birth, his spiritual philosophies, and his lessons in egalitarianism and solidarity. Imitations of Christ are based on this. The idea of ​​the Gospel is something that sets you free. children with a lack of recognition or pampering. Those children called "middle age", usually second or third children. They are so because their mothers have gone through long on shipments throughout life and history. We have xenophobia there. This all gives vent to hatred, resentment, a psychopolitics of the collective, but of the low one resting in the modern bastardism of populism, those eager for a political adoption is enough to see Hitler and Mussollini. Justice is that. This stability of the continuous resonance in immunization situation. Injustice is when the mother, at a certain historical or rather prehistoric moment, begins to be overwhelmed in several senses by neolithic proletarianization, even then by the best conditions that lead to the potentiation of procreation, and which does not to offer the same necessary care to all (as in the case of Cain and Abel). Children who are considered to be invaders, the "middle age," who have been on the verge of abortion, are the ones who will always think there is some injustice in the world. They are also the creators or motivators of utopias, the ideal places that will form as great uterus and maternal arms (as the motherland or extreme nationalisms), and where the biomecenate will give the architecture patronage function. In this place, what is called immunization space will reign again. Are not utopias and utopians, revolutionaries, those who drop everything and enter a boat and sail the horizon? Was it not so, Jesus, one without possessions who instituted something new?
If we stay with Freud we will see that in his dissertations there is no generosity or solidarity, but if we choose Sloterdijk, we will see that his ideas function as a "uterotope", centered on a type of substitution of mothers by false mothers. A politics emerges as a rebirth of the physical mother to a metaphorical: The State - Welfare State. Which works as a larger and higher lap. It is he who molds the psychoacoustic envelope that extends over the polis as a community spirit. An old policy of hordes in the psychoacoustic sphere should be amplified and reproduced as a world circle as cosmos. An idea that goes from biomecenate-biopatronage to patronage as a generosity. The mother functions as biomechanics and then is replaced by similar patronage, to a situation, lived in the contemporary globalization of a universalized patronage. Everything begins in microspherology. We have the fetus-uterus relationship, then the fetus-mother, then the mother-child. Subsequently, in the macro-sphere, then, the institutions that take care of children appear, and that are done like the mothers, stand up as a social need recognized by all. Man is a being who has companions throughout his life. The nurse, the nurse, the doctor, the teacher, the mother, the father, the wife, the geniuses, the angels, the helpers, precisely because our spherical psychology is not one of liberal individualism as ideology, but a psychology that keeps the place of the companions. The mime is the central element of this resonance of the initial dyad that must endure as a continuous umbilical cord that elevates the man from the situation of mime to the one of more mime. Human space must be a space of pampering and immunity, a new uterus or a new place of maternal care. In the face of this narrative Sloterdijkians eyes become less heavy. It is a narrative less bored and less violent. If we bring the notion of justice to the question of self-sufficiency, Sloterdijk does not fail to incorporate also the notion of thymos, the ancient psychological place in which restraint rests for self-esteem. That is, "envy" would be something typically to want the pride of the mother or the father to show itself as capable, an anger of recognition and generosity. We know how much injustice concerns the image of wounded pride, contempt, or indifference. The Oedipal narrative nullifies this view, especially by the visible preference of the Father for one of his children. We can highlight the first specific dedications of the first human mothers for their offspring as a form of biological patronage. Its life-giving ability enables extremely unique and preferred individuals to go into patronage by biological automatism when the mother accepts her child as an act of adoption. Advance as soon as in the spherology the adoption takes primacy over the biological kinship. Civilization is synonymous with capacity for adoption. The constant tutelage makes the mother an anthropogenic mother. The mother primarily carried the fetus like a backpack. One more important fact to the despair of feminists. Civilization would be the prototype of the functions of mother-distinct in the form of animating, supportive, educational income, investment in offspring that can be separated from biological mothers and passed on to third parties or institutions. We could cite some examples such as the nurses, compensation systems seen in the Modern State of beneficence, in the Middle Ages the "Mother Church" as an adoptive power, Nature as Mother Nature, etc. Sloterdijk takes all this in his words "a new definition of the civilizing process, whose key mechanism is the progressive development of technical and systemic alternatives to the first maternity." That is, maternity as a printable function, such as not to leave the helplessness, discovered, without compensation, without return, without adoption, without state, without immigration, without social benefits, without love, without fines, without executions of contracts, without social security, without retirement, without Welfare State. With the antinaturalism of the process of civilization, we observe a metaphorization of motherhood. It is the substitute of mother force in action. Understanding these considerations, the evolution of the species is stimulated by a feeling that the core of the lack should be sought in the paucity of potential maternal surrogate means. The whole story is the story no more of class struggles, but between wellness communities.

As we have seen the substitution of grace giving way to the Affluent Society, it successfully succeeded in the massive liberation of women from their traditional definitions of role that gave way to new concepts of conception of motherhood and birth. New categories of active mothers for wealth. The power to promise a mother access to sources of great flow of surrogate mothers’ energy. With the considerations here we can still think about the movie Mother!, political analogies, psychological, religious, immigration, wars, fanaticism, terrorism, theology, Greek mythology, narcissism, pop entertainment, etc.

[1] Idea treated in the film Annihilation (2018) of Netflix.

[2] Interestingly the movie interpretation of people invading the house can also be seen with pregnancy. A room in a hospital that always people walk in without even asking for a pregnant if they can enter. It would be almost an invasion of the maternal space. Sometimes people known or unknown. It seems that the woman being pregnant or even the mother-land always has the ability to attract people. Like Jesus, everyone wants to see the new, the baby.

[3] SLOTERDIJK, Peter. Esferas II: Globos ( Macroesferología ). Spheres II: Globes (Macrospherology). Traduccíon de Isidoro Reguera. Madrid: Siruela, 2004, p. 222.

[4] SLOTERDIJK, Peter. Esferas III: Espumas ( Esferología Plural) . Spheres III: Foams (Plural Spherology). Traducción de Isidoro Reguera. Madrid: Siruela, 2006, p. 579.