...it is necessary to reserve the use of the word expenditure for the designation of… unproductive forms…
…humanity recognizes the right to acquire, to conserve, and to consume rationally, but it excludes in principle nonproductive expenditure.
…it appears that sacred things are constituted by an operation of loss.
George Bataille’s 1933 essay The Notion of Expenditure (La notion de dépense) challenges conventional economic paradigms by positing that human societies are fundamentally driven by non-productive, wasteful expenditure rather than mere accumulation. A French philosopher and surrealist, Bataille critiques utilitarian frameworks, arguing that acts of excess, such as rituals, art, and sacrifice, reveal deeper existential truths about human freedom and desire. This essay establishes the foundation for Bataille’s theory of a “general economy”, later developed in his work The Accursed Share, centered on loss and exuberance, in contrast to ‘restrictive economy.’
Bataille introduces dépense (expenditure) as the irreversible loss of energy or resources without expectation of return. Contrasting with capitalist and Marxist models focused on production and utility, he asserts that societies inherently generate surplus, which must be expended through “unproductive” acts. Examples include: Potlatch ceremonies (from Marcel Mauss’s The Gift), where destruction of wealth signifies power, religious sacrifices and monuments (e.g., pyramids), which convert material surplus into symbolic grandeur and art, festivals, and war, which channel excess into creative or destructive outlets.
Bataille frames expenditure as an existential imperative, arguing that humans seek to transcend utilitarian constraints through acts of “glorious squandering.” This excess energy, derived from natural abundance (symbolized by the sun), must be spent, either consciously through rituals or catastrophically through crises like war.
Thus, the notion of utility, does not capture surplus; Bataille argues that classical utility, the idea that human activity is fundamentally driven by rational accumulation, productive efficiency, or measurable gain, is insufficient for understanding the full scope of human behavior and societal organization. He critiques this principle as a narrow, reductive framework that fails to account for the pervasive role of non-productive, wasteful, or “useless” expenditure in human life. To put it in simple term expenditure cannot be absorbed by utilitarian systems. This surplus must be destroyed or squandered through acts that defy rational calculation, such as rituals, art, luxury, or violent excess .
Bataille emphasizes that many human practices, like potlatch (competitive gift-giving), religious sacrifice, monumental architecture, and warfare, are rooted in loss, not gain. These acts serve no practical purpose but instead affirm power, transcendence, or existential meaning. For example, burning wealth in a potlatch ceremony or constructing a pyramid (which “produces nothing”) demonstrates that societies value symbolic grandeur and sacred waste as much as material survival.
Wasteful expenditure, for Bataille, is not irrational but existentially necessary. It reflects humanity’s desire to escape the constraints of mere survival and engage in sovereign experiences, moments of intensity, awe, or destruction that defy utilitarian logic. Such acts bind communities through shared spectacle or sacrifice, creating social cohesion that transcends economic transactions.
Than, how does unproductive activity relate to production and exchange? these latter two concept, fail to account for the essential role of unproductive expenditure in social and existential life. Classical economic models prioritize productive labor (creation of goods) and reciprocal exchange (trade for mutual benefit), framing human behavior through the lens of utility, accumulation, and rational self-interest. Bataille contends that these models ignore the reality of surplus energy, for societies inevitably generate excess resources that cannot be absorbed by productive or reciprocal systems.
For example, potlatch is reinterpreted as acts of symbolic destruction rather than mutual gain. In potlatch, giving or destroying wealth becomes a display of power, undermining the notion of exchange as purely transactional. This contrasts with capitalist exchange, which aims to maximize profit, and socialist models, which emphasize equitable distribution. Both fail to address the existential need for loss.
Bataille, then examines how the wealthy class historically assumes the role of expending surplus resources in a socially sanctioned manner, arguing that their “wasteful” activities are not frivolous but serve a critical symbolic and structural function in maintaining social hierarchies and cultural meaning. Bataille challenges the notion that the wealthy hoard resources for personal gain. Instead, he argues that their social position compels them to destroy or squander surplus through acts of conspicuous consumption (e.g., luxury, art patronage) or spectacular destruction. This expenditure is not optional but a duty tied to their status, ensuring the circulation of energy and preventing stagnation in the economic system.
The wealthy class legitimizes its dominance by converting material surplus into symbolic power. Examples include, feudal systems where Aristocrats hosted lavish feasts or commissioned cathedrals to demonstrate divine favor. And capitalist elites: Patronage of art or science replaces overt destruction but still serves to “waste” surplus in culturally valorized ways. These acts reinforce social hierarchies by distinguishing the elite from the laboring class, whose activities are tied to production.
The hatred of expenditure is the raison d’étre of and the justification for the bourgeoisie
Bataille also contrasts traditional aristocratic expenditure with the bourgeois ethos of thrift and accumulation. He argues that the middle class’s focus on saving and reinvestment suppresses the unproductive expenditure leading to crises (e.g., colonial exploitation, war) when surplus inevitably erupts in destructive forms. The wealthy’s functional expenditure, while unequal, at least channels surplus into aesthetic or sacred forms (e.g., art, architecture) that generate collective meaning. Thus, Bataille emphasizes that all societies, regardless of ideology, rely on a ruling class to manage surplus through symbolic destruction, as no system can fully absorb its own excess without crisis.
Thus, Bataille reinterprets class struggle through the lens of his theory of expenditure, arguing that traditional Marxist critiques of capitalism, centered on exploitation, labor, and ownership, fail to account for the deeper existential and symbolic dynamics of surplus and waste that underpin social conflict. Bataille critiques Marxist analyses for reducing class struggle to a conflict over production and material distribution. While acknowledging capitalism’s injustices, he contends that class antagonism is also rooted in the unequal capacity to engage in unproductive expenditure, which he ties to sovereignty1, prestige, and existential fulfillment.
The ruling class (bourgeoisie) not only controls production but also monopolizes the right to squander surplus through luxury, art, and spectacle. This exclusive access to “sovereign” acts of expenditure denies the proletariat participation in activities that transcend mere survival, deepening their alienation. Bataille contrasts this with pre-capitalist societies (e.g., feudal or potlatch-based systems), where elites were obligated to expend wealth publicly, creating a symbolic bond with the lower classes. Under capitalism, bourgeois expenditure becomes privatized and insular, severing this communal function.
The working class, confined to productive labor, is excluded from glorious expenditure. Bataille suggests that proletarian revolt itself becomes a form of catastrophic expenditure, a violent, collective squandering of energy aimed at dismantling oppressive structures. Strikes, riots, or revolutions are not just demands for equity but also expressions of a repressed “will to lose”, a desire to rupture the utilitarian order and reclaim sovereignty.
Bataille frames class conflict as a manifestation of the general economy’s demand for expenditure. The bourgeoisie and proletariat are locked in a struggle not merely over resources but over the right to destroy, a conflict that mirrors humanity’s broader tension between utilitarian survival and transcendent excess.
In the final sections of this essay, Bataille examines Christianity and revolutionary movements as two historical frameworks that attempt to manage the existential and social imperatives of expenditure, albeit in opposing ways. He explores how both systems grapple with humanity’s need to transcend utilitarian survival through acts of loss, sacrifice, or rupture, but ultimately critiques their limitations in addressing the surplus energy.
Bataille argues that Christianity redirects humanity’s drive for glorious expenditure into ascetic practices (e.g., celibacy, martyrdom) and symbolic rituals (e.g., the Eucharist, charity). These acts transform raw excess into spiritually valorized forms of loss, emphasizing humility, self-denial, and deferred gratification. However, Christianity’s focus on moral utility (e.g., charity as a “good deed”) dilutes the radical, non-productive essence of expenditure. By framing sacrifice as a means to spiritual gain (e.g., salvation), it reintroduces a hidden economy of exchange, betraying the principle of pure, purposeless loss.
In contrast, revolutionary movements (e.g., the French or Bolshevik revolutions) embrace expenditure as violent, collective destruction of the existing order. Revolts channel surplus energy into upheaval, breaking the constraints of utility and creating space for new social forms. Bataille sees revolution as a more “authentic” expression of expenditure because it prioritizes immediate, transformative loss over delayed rewards. The destruction of property, hierarchies, and norms embodies expenditure erupting catastrophically when repressed by rigid systems. Despite their destructive fervor, revolutions often succumb to reinstating utilitarian frameworks. Post-revolutionary societies (e.g., socialist states) revert to prioritizing production, labor, and rational organization, suppressing expenditure once again. For Bataille, this reveals the impossibility of fully escaping the tension between surplus and utility.
Bataille concludes by framing both Christianity and revolution as flawed attempts to reconcile humanity with the sacred, the realm of absolute loss, excess, and transcendence. Bataille hints that a truly radical society would embrace expenditure without moral or pragmatic justification, but acknowledges this as an “impossible” ideal within historical constraints.
…human life cannot in any way be limited to the closed systems assigned to it by reasonable conceptions. The immense travail of recklessness, discharge, and upheaval that constitutes life could be expressed by stating that life starts only with the deficit of these systems…
In the concluding section, an speculative one, Bataille argue that material reality itself resists subordination to utilitarian frameworks, defying humanity’s attempts to impose rational order on the inherent excess and volatility of existence.
The Notion of Expenditure remains a seminal text for its audacious reimagining of human motivation. By elevating waste to a philosophical principle, Bataille invites readers to confront the irrational undercurrents of societal structures. While not a pragmatic economic blueprint, the essay’s enduring relevance lies in its challenge to reconsider value, freedom, and the sacred in an over-rationalized world. In an era of hyperconsumerism, Bataille’s insights into surplus and sacrifice provoke critical reflection on the paths to existential and ecological equilibrium.
Reference
https://cominsitu.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/notion-of-expenditure-bataille-1933-1.pdf