Short Story: “‘Extended Man and the Kingdom of the Machine’ by F.T. Marinetti (with a Critical Gloss by Christina Martinelli-Rubinsky, of the University of Pennsylvania)”
(Note: I think the translation of Marinetti to which I have access is still copyrighted, so this riff on motivated reading of political texts that makes use of that translation can’t and shouldn’t be. Complete Creative Commons free-for-all. See if I care.)
The foregoing will have prepared you for understanding one of our chief Futurist endeavors, namely the abolition in literature of the seemingly unquestionable fusion of the dual concepts of Woman and Beauty. The effect of this has been to reduce romanticism to a kind of heroic assault, launched by a warlike, lyrical male on a tower that is bristling with enemies, gathered about the divine Woman-Beauty.
Marinetti opposes the objectification of women. Some argue that he himself perpetuates the objectification of women throughout this essay in another form, but he makes it clear at the beginning that this is not his intent, and even though impact matters more than intent, the fact that Marinetti supported women having equal political rights to men as well means that we ought to take him at his word here. Our key to interpreting this must then be that he opposes the objectification of women and their treatment as mere sexual objects.
Novels such as Victor Hugo’s Les Travailleurs de la mer or Flaubert’s Salammbô can explain my idea. What we’re looking at is a dominant leitmotif that is threadbare and tedious, and of which we wish to rid literature and art as a whole. That’s why we are developing and proclaiming a great new idea that is circulating in contemporary life, namely the idea of mechanical beauty. Thus we are promoting love of the machine—that love we first saw lighting up the faces of engine drivers, scorched and filthy with coal dust though they were. Have you ever watched an engine driver lovingly washing the great powerful body of his engine? He uses the same little acts of tenderness and close familiarity as the lover when caressing his beloved.
Marinetti, rejecting the oppressive structures of “Western canon” writers such as Hugo and Flaubert, instead exalts the liberated eroticism of the machine—cf. Donna Haraway, Shulamith Firestone, pioneers in the field of AI-enhanced adult entertainment, etc. He strikes a blow against sex-work-exclusionary radical feminism. Before these ideas even existed, he already anticipates and refutes the idea that the social construct of romantic love is the only alternative to sexual objectification.
We know for certain that during the great French rail strike, the organizers of that subversion did not manage to persuade even one single engine driver to sabotage his locomotive. And to me that seems absolutely natural. How on earth could one of these men have injured or destroyed his great, faithful, devoted friend, whose heart was ever giving and courageous, his beautiful engine of steel that had so often glistened sensuously beneath the lubricating caress of his hand?
Marinetti rejects class reductionism and labor chauvinism. His leftism and futurism are not the ossified obsession with structure, routine, and so-called “proven” methods that are so typical of “organized labor.” One is confident that Marinetti today would support workforce flexibilization as a means of social advancement and combating all oppressive power structures. Cf. Kazan, On the Waterfront, et al.
Not an image, this, but rather a reality, almost, that we shall easily be able to put to the test in a few years’ time. You will undoubtedly have heard the comments that car owners and car workshop managers habitually make: “Motorcars, they say, are truly mysterious... They have their foibles, they do unexpected things; they seem to have personalities, souls and wills of their own. You have to stroke them, treat them respectfully, never mishandle them nor overtire them. If you follow this advice, this machine made of cast iron and steel, this motor constructed according to precise calculations, will give you not only its due, but double and triple, considerably more and a whole lot better than the calculations of its creator, its father, ever dreamed of!” Well then, I see in these words a great, important revelation, promising the not-too-distant discovery of the laws of a true sensitivity in machines! We have therefore to prepare for the imminent, inevitable identification of man with his motorcar, so as to facilitate and perfect an unending exchange of intuitions, rhythms, instincts, and metallic discipline, absolutely unknown to the majority and only guessed at by the brightest spirits.
Here Marinetti foresees or foreshadows transhumanism and the abolition of the idea that biology is destiny. The human being for Marinetti is a creature of liberated potential, not oppressed actuality. His lack of interest in “givenness” is freeing; cf. “friendly AI” theorists; Solanas, “full automation”; Yoda, “luminous beings are we”; a Boston Globe article about putting Ted Williams on ice that I can’t find to cite right now. [Ed: How hard can this be, Chris?]
There can be no doubt that, in admitting Lamarck’s transformist hypothesis, it has to be acknowledged that we aspire to the creation of a nonhuman species in which moral anguish, goodness, affection, and love, the singular corrosive poisons of vital energy, the only off-switches of our powerful, physiological electricity, will be abolished. We believe in the possibility of an incalculable number of human transformations, and we are not joking when we declare that in human flesh wings lie dormant. The day when it will be possible for man to externalize his will so that, like a huge invisible arm, it can extend beyond him, then his Dream and his Desire, which today are merely idle words, will rule supreme over conquered Space and Time. This nonhuman, mechanical species, built for constant speed, will quite naturally be cruel, omniscient, and warlike. It will possess the most unusual organs; organs adapted to the needs of an environment in which there are continuous clashes.
Marinetti does not put stock in the limitations of oppressive middle-class values. His feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit. Girlboss! [Ed: if you didn’t call him a girlboss when you brought up On the Waterfront, you shouldn’t be calling him a girlboss now.]
Even now we can predict a development of the external protrusion of the sternum, resembling a prow, which will have great significance, given that man, in the future, will become an increasingly better aviator. Indeed, a similar development can be seen in the strongest fliers among birds. You will easily understand these apparently paradoxical hypotheses if you think of the externalized will that is continually in play during spiritualist séances. What’s more, it’s certain, and you can observe it easily enough yourself, that today, ever more frequently, one comes across people from the lower classes who, though utterly devoid of any culture or education whatsoever, are nonetheless gifted with what I call the “great mechanical intuition” or “a nose for things metallic.” And that’s because those workmen have already had the experience of an education in machinery and, in a certain sense, have identified closely with it. In order to prepare for the formation of the nonhuman, mechanical species of extended man, through the externalization of his will, it is very important that the need for affection, which man feels in his veins and which cannot yet be destroyed, be greatly reduced. The man of the future will reduce his own heart to its proper function of blood distribution. The heart, by some means or other, must become a sort of stomach of the brain, which is fed systematically, so that the spirit can embark on action.
Correctly, and foreseeing the important work done by Foucault, Marinetti identifies philonormativity (not Foucault’s word, but it should have been) as a bourgeois value used as a means of restricting human potential to artificial and constricting relationship-forms. See also the concept of the “eroticism of the journey” as in my book on sexuality in the life and times of Jack Kerouac.
Today, one encounters men who go through life more or less without love, in a beautiful, steel-toned frame of mind. We have to find ways of ensuring that these exemplary beings continue to increase in number. These dynamic beings do not have any sweet lover to see at night, but instead lovingly prefer, every morning, the perfect start-up of their workshops. What’s more, we are convinced that art and literature exercise a determining influence over all classes in society, even over the most ignorant, who by some mysterious process of infiltration absorb them. We can thus either promote or retard the movement of humanity toward this form of life that is free of sentimentalism and lust. In spite of our skeptical determinism that we have to kill off each day, we believe in the value of artistic propaganda against panegyrics favoring Don Juans and ludicrous cuckolds. These two words must be purged entirely of their meaning in life, in art, and in the collective imagination. Does not the ridicule poured upon the cuckold perhaps contribute to the exaltation of the Don Juan? And the exaltation of Don Juan contributes to making the cuckold seem ever more ridiculous? Freeing ourselves from these two motifs we shall also free ourselves from the great obsessive phenomenon of jealousy, which is nothing but a by-product of a vanity that springs from Don Juanism. The whole enormous business of romantic love is thus reduced to the single purpose of preservation of the species, and physical arousal is at last freed from all its titillating mystery, from relish for the salacious and from all the vanity of Don Juanism; it becomes merely bodily function, like eating and drinking. The extended man we dream of will never experience the tragedy of old age!
[Ed: You’re missing an easy layup by not bringing up Alexandra Kollontai here.]
But it is for this reason that young men of this present age, at long last sick and tired of erotic books, of the twofold drug of sentimentalism and lust, and being at last made immune to the sickness of Love, will have to learn to systematically purge themselves of all heartaches. This they can do through daily eradication of their emotions and seeking endless sexual amusement in rapid, casual encounters with women. This frank optimism of ours is thus diametrically opposed to the pessimism of Schopenhauer, that bitter philosopher who so often proffered the tantalizing revolver of philosophy to kill off, in ourselves, the deep-seated sickness of Love with a capital L. And it is precisely with this revolver that we shall so gladly target the great Romantic Moonlight.
cf. Erika Moen, “What the Fuck’s a Cuck?”; various other works in the sex-positive feminist tradition; Eric Anderson, The Monogamy Gap; Nancy Meyers, The Parent Trap; Roderick Featherstonehaugh Brill, The Monogamy Trap; Brandon Wheek, The Parent Gap; W. Braxton Naylor, “Towards a Pornography of Epistemological Liberation”; Alex X. Valli, “Polymorphous Perversity and the Decolonial Imaginary”; Jackie Treehorn, Logjammin’; Budd Starr, Gary the Cable Bi 3: Who’s Up for an Orgy?
Christina Martinelli-Rubinsky is the Distinguished Professor of Intersectional Liberation Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. She is the author of Gay Right: The Anti-Assimilationist Witness of Yukio Mishima; Road Head: Jack Kerouac, Hugh Hefner, and the Pornographization of the American Dream; Inevitable: Why the Sex-Positivity Movement Will Win; and, most recently, Hamas’s Fight is Humanity’s Fight: A Guidebook for Queer Palestine Action. She lives with her Dominant, Pitiless Bruce, in Center City Philadelphia.