In its famous paradox, the equation of money and excrement, psychoanalysis becomes the first science to state what common sense and the poets have long known - that the essence of money is in its absolute worthlessness.

In this quote, Norman O. Brown, a philosopher and cultural critic, explores the psychological and symbolic nature of money through the lens of psychoanalysis. He refers to a "famous paradox" that equates money with excrement, a provocative metaphor that challenges traditional views of value and wealth. By drawing on Freudian theory, Brown suggests that, at a subconscious level, society treats money in ways that mirror its relationship with bodily waste—both are produced, discarded, and yet strangely fetishized.

Brown argues that psychoanalysis is the first formal science to articulate what common sense and poets have long understood intuitively: that money, despite its central role in civilization, has no intrinsic value. Its power lies in social agreement, not in any inherent substance. This recognition, he claims, reveals the true emptiness behind the pursuit of wealth. The worthlessness he speaks of is not practical—money clearly has function—but rather existential and symbolic, reflecting deeper truths about human desire and illusion.

This quote comes from Brown’s influential work Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History (1959), where he merges Freudian analysis with philosophical and cultural criticism. In this context, the equation of money with waste is used to critique modern capitalist society, where material accumulation often replaces deeper spiritual or emotional fulfillment. His view is radical and poetic, meant to jolt readers into questioning deeply embedded assumptions about value, economy, and civilization.

Ultimately, Brown’s observation challenges us to reconsider the psychic investment we place in money. If, as he says, its "essence" lies in its worthlessness, then the obsession with accumulating it reveals more about human anxiety, control, and the construction of meaning than it does about practical necessity. His work invites readers to see money not just as currency, but as a mirror reflecting deeper cultural pathologies.