Sei sulla pagina 1di 81

Infancy and History

The Destruction of Experience

GIORGIO AGAMBEN
Translated by i! Heron

"

#ONTENT$

TranslatorAs Note
@RE%A#E

"ii & && 15 )' &9( &45 &++


&=&

Experi<entu< in-uae
%irst published as

This edition first published by *erso &''+ Giulio Einaudi &'() Translation , i! Heron &''+ All ri-hts reser"ed
*erso

Infanzia e storia by Giulio Einaudi Editore in &'()

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

An Essay on the Destruction of Experience


IN @ A7 AND

Reflections on History and @lay


TIME AND HI$TOR7

./0 1 Meard $treet2 ondon 3&* +HR .$A0 4' 3est +5th $treet2 Ne6 7or82 N7 &999&:44'&;
*erso is the i<print of Ne6 eft Boo8s

#ritiBue of the Instant and the #ontinuu<


THE @RIN#E AND THE %ROG

I$BN 9:)19'&:=(9:= I$BN 9:)19'&:1=5:1 >pb8? British ibrary #atalo-uin- in @ublication Data A catalo-ue record for this boo8 is a"ailable fro< the British ibrary A catalo-ue record for this boo8 is a"ailable fro< the ibrary of #on-ress Typeset by $olidus >Bristol? i<ited @rinted and hound in Great Britain by Biddies td

The Cuestion of Method in Adorno and BenDa<in


%AB E AND HI$TOR7

ibrary of #on-ress #atalo-in-: in:@ublication Data

#onsiderations on the Nati"ity #rib


NOTE$ ON GE$T.RE @ROEE#T %OR A RE*IE3

TRAN$ ATORA$ NOTE

@RE%A#E
Experi<entu< in-uae

I ha"e tried2 6here"er possible2 to annotate Buotations that had no references in the ori-inal2 and to use published En-lish translations of these Buotations 6here they exist; I ha"e found the %rench edition of Infanzia e Storia helpful in this respect; In other cases I ha"e translated Buotations directly fro< the %rench2 and in instances 6here no En-lish translation fro< the Ger<an is a"ailable2 I ha"e translated fro< the Italian2 6hile consultinthe %rench edition; I 6ish to than8 Malcol< I<rie for the assistance he -a"e <e in tracin- references; ;H;

E"ery 6ritten 6or8 can be re-arded as the prolo-ue >or rather2 the bro8en cast? of a 6or8 ne"er penned2 and destined to re<ain so2 because later 6or8s2 6hich in turn 6ill be the prolo-ues or the <oulds for other absent 6or8s2 represent only s8etches or death <as8s; The absent 6or82 althou-h it is unplaceable in any precise chronolo-y2 thereby constitutes the 6ritten 6or8s as prolegomena or paralipomena of a non:existent textF or2 in a <ore -eneral sense2 as parerga 6hich find their true <eaninonly in the context of an ille-ible ergon. To ta8e Montai-neAs fine i<a-e2 these are the frie!e of -rotesBues around an unpain: ted portrait2 or2 in the spirit of the pseudo:@latonic letter2 the counterfeit of a boo8 6hich cannot be 6ritten; The best 6ay of introducin- this hoo82 6hich 6ill be read in En-lish translation so<e fifteen years after the first Italian edition2 6ould be to atte<pt to s8etch the outlines of the un6ritten 6or8 of 6hich it for<s the prolo-ue2 then possibly to refer to the later boo8s 6hich are its after6ords; In fact2 bet6een Infancy and History >&'((? and 11linguaggio e la mortel >&')4?2 <any pa-es ha"e been 6ritten 6hich attest the proDect of a 6or8 that re<ains stubbornly un6ritten2 The title of this 6or8 is a voce umana >The Hu<an *oice? or2 as other6ise noted2 Etica, ovvero della voce >Ethics2 an essay on the "oice?; One of these pa-es contains this incipit:
Is there a hu<an "oice2 a "oice that is the "oice of <an as the chirp is the "oice of the cric8et or the bray is the "oice of the don8eyG And2 if it exists2 is this "oice lan-ua-eG 3hat is the relationship bet6een "oice and lan-ua-e2 bet6een phone and lo-osG And if such a thinas a hu<an "oice does not exist2 in 6hat sense can <an still be defined as the li"in- bein- 6hich has lan-ua-eG The Buestions thus for<ulated <ar8 off a philosophical interro-ation; In the tradition of the ancients2 the Buestion of the "oice 6as a cardinal philosoph: ical Buestion; De "ocis nemo magis quam philosophi tractant, 6e

read in $er"ius2 and for the $toics2 6ho -a"e the decisi"e i<pulse to
3estern thin8in- on lan-ua-e2 the "oice 6as the arkhe of the
+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7 @RE%A#E

dialectic; 7et philosophy has hardly e"er posed the Buestion of the "oice as an issue ;;;

It is si-nificant that the author should ha"e arri"ed at his


inBuiry into the hu<an "oice >or its absence? precisely throu-h a reflection on infancy; In:fancy2 6hich is this boo8As subDect2 is not a si<ple -i"en 6hose chronolo-ical site <i-ht be isolated2 nor is it li8e an a-e or a psychoso<atic state 6hich a psycholo-y or a palaeoanthropolo-y could construct as a hu<an fact independent of lan-ua-e; If e"ery thou-ht can be classified accordin- to the 6ay in 6hich it articulates the Buestion of the li<its of lan-ua-e2 the concept of infancy is then an atte<pt to thin8 throu-h these li<its in a direction other than that of the "ul-arly ineffable; The ineffable2 the un:said2 are in fact cate-ories 6hich belonexclusi"ely to hu<an lan-ua-eF far fro< indicatin- a li<it of lan-ua-e2 they express its in"incible po6er of presupposition2 the unsayable bein- precisely 6hat lan-ua-e <ust presuppose in order to si-nify; The concept of infancy2 on the contrary2 is accessible only to a thou-ht 6hich has been purified2 in the able fro< lan-ua-eA; The sin-ularity 6hich lan-ua-e <ust si-nify is not so<ethin- ineffable but so<ethin- superlati"ely sayable0 the thing of lan-ua-e;

to consider obDects in so far as they are Honly thou-htA; This2 he 6rites2 is an experience 6hich is under-one not 6ith obDects2 as in the natural sciences2 but 6ith concepts and principles 6hich 6e ad<it a priori >such obDects2 he adds2 H<ust yet be able to be thou-htIA?; In one of Erd<annAs published fra-<ents2 this experi<ent is described as an HisolationA of pure reason0
I intend to exa<ine ho6 <uch reason can 8no6 a priori and to 6hat extent it is independent of sensibility;;; ; This Buestion is a <aDor and i<portant one2 since it sho6s <an his destiny in relation to reason; To achie"e such a -oal2 I dee< it necessary to isolate reason %die $ernunft zu isolieren& as 6ell as sensibility2 considerin- only 6hat can be 8no6n a priori and ho6 it belon-s in the real< of reason; This exa<ination in isolation %diese a'gesonderte (etrachtung&, this pure philosophy %reine "hilosophie& is of -reat usefulness;

6ords of BenDa<in 6ritin- to Buber2 H by eli<inatin- the unsay:

One need only -i"e close attention to the <o"e<ent of /antian thou-ht to reali!e that the experi<ent in pure reason is neces: sarily an e perimentum linguae, founded only on the possibility of na<in- the transcendental obDects 6hereby /ant describes He<pty concepts 6ithout an obDectA >the noumenon, for exa<: ple?2 6hich conte<porary lin-uistics 6ould call ter<s 6ithout a referent >but 6hich retain2 /ant 6rites2 a transcendental Bedeu:

This is 6hy2 in this boo82 infancy finds its lo-ical place in a presentation of the relationship bet6een lan-ua-e and experi: ence; Ta8in- BenDa<inAs -uidelines for his proDect of the philoso: phy to co<e2 the experience at issue here can be defined only in ter<s of the Htranscendental experienceA that 6as inad<issible for /ant; One of the <ost ur-ent tas8s for conte<porary thou-ht is2 6ithout doubt2 to redefine the concept of the transcendental in ter<s of its relation 6ith lan-ua-e; %or if it is true that /ant 6as able to articulate his concept of the transcendental only by o<ittin- the Buestion of lan-ua-e2 here HtranscendentalA <ust instead indicate an experience 6hich is under-one only 6ithin lan-ua-e2 an e perimentum linguae in the true <eanin- of the 6ords2 in 6hich 6hat is experienced is lan-ua-e itself; In his preface to the second edition of the !ritique of "ure #eason, /ant presents as an E periment der reinen $ernunft the atte<pt
=

tung).

Infancy is an e perimentum linguae of this 8ind2 in 6hich the li<its of lan-ua-e are to be found not outside lan-ua-e2 in the direction of its referent2 but in an experience of lan-ua-e as such2 in its pure self:reference; But 6hat can an experience of this 8ind beG Ho6 can there be experience not of an obDect but of lan-ua-e itselfG And2 if so2 6ithout lan-ua-e experienced as this or that si-nifyin- proposi: tion2 but as the pure fact that one spea8s2 that lan-ua-e exists; If for e"ery author there exists a Buestion 6hich defines the motivum of his thou-ht2 then the precise scope of these Buestions coincides 6ith the terrain to6ards 6hich all <y 6or8 is orientated; In both <y 6ritten and un6ritten boo8s2 I ha"e stubbornly pursued only one train of thou-ht0 6hat is the <eanin- of Hthere is lan-ua-eAF 6hat is the <eanin- of HI spea8AG It is certainly clear that neither the spea8in- nor the bein-: spo8en2 6hich corresponds to it a parte o'*ecti, is a real
5

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

predicate 6hich can be identified in this or that property >li8e that of bein- red2 %rench2 old2 co<<unist?; They are2 rather2 trascendentia in the <eanin- of this ter< 6ithin <edie"al lo-ic : that is2 predicates 6hich transcend all cate-ories 6hile insistinon each one of the<F to be <ore exact2 they ha"e to be concei"ed as arch:transcendentals2 or transcendentals to the second po6er2 6hich2 on /antAs scholastic list %quodlidet ens est unum, verurn, 'onum seu perfectum&, transcend the "ery transcendentals and are i<plicated in each one of the<; To carry out the e perimentum linguae, ho6e"er2 is to "enture into a perfectly e<pty di<ension >the +eerer #aum of the /antian concept:li<it? in 6hich one can encounter only the pure exteri: ority of lan-ua-e2 that Hetale<ent du lan-a-e dans son etre brutA of 6hich %oucault spea8s in one of his <ost philosophically dense 6ritin-s; E"ery thin8er has probably had to underta8e this experience at least onceF it is e"en possible that 6hat 6e call thou-ht is purely and si<ply this e perimentum. In his lectures on the Essence of ,anguage, Heide--er tal8s about ha"in- an experience 6ith lan-ua-e %mit der Sprache eine Erfahrung machen&. 3e ha"e this experience2 he 6rites2 only 6here 6e lac8 na<es2 6here speech brea8s on our lips; This brea8in- of speech is Hthe bac86ard step on the road of thou-htA; 3hereas infancy is sta8ed on the possibility that there is an experience of lan-ua-e 6hich is not <erely a silence or a deficiency of na<es2 but one 6hose lo-ic can be indicated2 6hose site and for<ula can be desi-nated2 at least up to a point; In Infancy and History, the site of a transcendental experience of this 8ind lies in that difference bet6een lan-ua-e and speech >$aussureAs langue and parole : or rather2 in Ben"enisteAs ter<s2 bet6een se<iotic and se<antic? 6hich cannot be enco<passed2 and 6hich e"ery reflection on lan-ua-e <ost confront; In sho6in- that there is no 6ay bet6een these t6o di<ensions2 Ben"eniste led the science of lan-ua-e >and2 6ith it2 the entire cohort of the hu<an sciences2 6ith lin-uistics as their pilot science? face to face 6ith the supre<e aporia2 beyond 6hich it cannot ad"ance 6ithout its transfor<ation into philosophy; It is clear2 therefore2 that for a bein- 6hose experience of lan-ua-e 6as not al6ays split into lan-ua-e and speech : in other 6ords2 a pri<ordially spea8in- bein-2 pri<ordially 6ithin an undi"ided lan-ua-e : there 6ould be no 8no6led-e2 no infancy2 no history0

@RE%A#E

he 6ould already be directly one 6ith his lin-uistic nature and 6ould no6here find any discontinuity or difference 6here any history or 8no6led-e <i-ht be produced; The double articulation of lan-ua-e and speech see<s2 there: fore2 to constitute the specific structure of hu<an lan-ua-e; Only fro< this can be deri"ed the true <eanin- of that opposition of dynamis and energeia, of potency and act2 6hich AristotleAs thou-ht has beBueathed to philosophy and 3estern science; @otency : or 8no6led-e : is the specifically hu<an faculty of connectedness as lac8F and lan-ua-e2 in its split bet6een lan: -ua-e and speech2 structurally contains this connectedness2 is nothin- other than this connectedness; Man does not <erely 8no6 nor <erely spea8F he is neither Homo sapiens nor Homo loquens, but Homo sapiens loquendi, and this ent6ine<ent constitutes the 6ay in 6hich the 3est has understood itself and laid the foundation for both its 8no6led-e and its s8ills; The unprecedented "iolence of hu<an po6er has its deepest roots in this structure of lan-ua-e; In this sense 6hat is experienced in the e perimentum linguae is not <erely an i<possibility of sayin-0 rather2 it is an i<possibility of spea8in- from the 'asis of a language- it is an experience2 "ia that infancy 6hich d6ells in the <ar-in bet6een lan-ua-e and discourse2 of the "ery faculty or po6er of speech; @osin- the Buestion of the transcendental <eans2 in the final analysis2 as8in- 6hat it <eans Hto ha"e a facultyA2 and 6hat is the -ra<<ar of the "erb Hto be ableA; And the only possible ans6er is an experience of lan-ua-e; In <y un6ritten 6or8 on the "oice2 the site of this transcendental experience 6as sou-ht instead in the difference bet6een "oice and lan-ua-e2 bet6een phone and logos, inas<uch as this difference opens the "ery space of ethics; %ro< this perspecti"e2 there are nu<erous drafts transcribinthe passa-e in the "olitics 6here Aristotle2 al<ost inad"ertently2 poses a decisi"e Buestion 6hich I set out to interpret0
Nature2 as 6e say2 does nothin- 6ithout so<e purposeF and for the purpose of <a8in- <an a political ani<al she has endo6ed hi< alone a<on- the ani<als 6ith the po6er of reasoned speech; $peech is so<ethin- different fro< "oice2 6hich is possessed by other ani<als also and used by the< to express pain or pleasureF for the natural po6ers of so<e ani<als do indeed enable the< both to feel (

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

pleasure and pain and to co<<unicate these to each other; $peech on the other hand ser"es to indicate 6hat is useful and 6hat is har<ful2 and so also 6hat is ri-ht and 6hat is 6ron-; %or the real difference bet6een <an and other ani<als is that hu<ans alone ha"e perception of -ood and e"il2 ri-ht and 6ron-2 Dust and unDust; And it is the sharin- of a co<<on "ie6 in these <atters that <a8es a household %oikia& or a city %polis&..

It has perhaps not been sufficiently noted that 6hen2 in /e interpretatione, Aristotle defines lin-uistic si-nification by refer: rin- fro< the "oice to the pathemata of the soul and to thin-s2 he is not <erely spea8in- of phone, but uses the expression to en to phone, 6hat is in the "oice; 3hat is it in the hu<an "oice that articulates the passa-e fro< the ani<al "oice to the lo-os2 fro< nature to polls0 AristotleAs response is 6ell 8no6n0 the "oice articulates grammata, letters; The ancient -ra<<arians be-an their ar-u<ent 6ith this opposition of the confused "oice 1phone synkechymene) of ani<als and the hu<an "oice2 6hich is instead enarthros, articulated; But if 6e as8 in 6hat this HarticulationA of the hu<an "oice consists2 6e see that for the< phone enarthros si<ply <eans phone engrdn2 matos, vo quae scri'i potest, the "oice that can be 6ritten : in short2 al6ays pre: existin- as 6ritten; AristotleAs ancient co<<entators had as8ed 6hy the philoso: pher had introduced the gramma as the fourth Hher<eneutA alon-side the other three >"oice2 pathemata, thin-s? 6hich explain the circle of lin-uistic si-nification; $o they attributed the particular status of the -ra<<a to the fact that2 unli8e the other three2 it is not Dust a sign, but also an ele<ent %stoicheion& of the "oice2 as articulation; As both a si-n and a constituti"e ele<ent of the "oice2 the gramma thus co<es to assu<e the paradoxical status of an index of itself %inde sui&. In this 6ay2 the letter is 6hat al6ays pre:exists 6ithin the <oat bet6een phone and lo-os2 the pri<ordial structure of si-nification; The boo8 I did not 6rite had Buite a different hypothesis; The <oat bet6een "oice and lan-ua-e >li8e that bet6een lan-ua-e and discourse2 potency and act? can open the space of ethics and the polls precisely because there is no arthros, no articulation bet6een phone and logos. The "oice has ne"er been 6ritten into lan-ua-e2 and the gram ma >as Derrida fortuitously de<on:

@RE%A#E

strated? is but the "ery for< of the presupposin- of self and of potency; The space bet6een "oice and lo-os is an e<pty space2 a li<it in the /antian sense; Only because <an finds hi<self cast into lan-ua-e 6ithout the "ehicle of a "oice2 and only because the e perirnenturn linguae lures hi<2 -ra<<arless2 into that "oid and that aphonia, do an ethos and a co<<unity of any 8ind beco<e possible; $o the co<<unity that is born of the e perimentum linguae cannot ta8e the for< of a presupposition2 not e"en in the purely H-ra<<aticalA for< of a self:presupposition; The spea8in- and the spo8en 6ith 6hich 6e <easure oursel"es in the e peri2 mentum are neither a "oice nor a gramma- as arch:trans: cendentals2 they are not e"en thin8able as a Buiddity2 a quid of 6hich 6e could e"er2 in @lotinusA fine i<a-e2 ta8e moirai, any share; The first outco<e of the e perimentum linguae, therefore2 is a radical re"ision of the "ery idea of #o<<unity; The only content of the e perimentum is that there is language- 6e cannot represent this2 by the do<inant <odel in our culture2 as a lan-ua-e2 as a state or a patri<ony of na<es and rules 6hich
each people trans<it fro< -eneration to -eneration; It is2 rather2

the unpresupposable non:latency in 6hich <en ha"e al6ays d6elt2 and in 6hich2 spea8in-2 they <o"e and breathe; %or all the forty <illennia of Homo sapiens, <an has not yet "entured to assu<e this non:latency2 to ha"e the experience of his spea8in- bein-; In the only public lecture he e"er -a"e2 before the <e<bers of a club self:styled Hthe hereticsA2 3itt-enstein reproposes his o6n e perimentum linguae:
HAnd no6 I shall describe the experience of 6onder<ent before the existence of the 6orld2 6ith these 6ords0 the 6orld thus is experienced as a <iracle; I a< no6 te<pted to say that the correct expression in lan-ua-e for the <iracle of the existence of the 6orld2 albeit as expressin- nothin- 3ithin lan-ua-e2 is the existence of lan-ua-e itself;A

et us try to follo6 throu-h 3itt-ensteinAs experi<ent2 by as8in- oursel"es0 if the <ost appropriate expression of 6onder: <ent at the existence of the 6orld is the existence of lan-ua-e2 6hat then is the correct expression for the existence of lan:
-ua-eG

The only possible ans6er to this Buestion is0 hu<an life2 as


'

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

ethos, as ethical 6ay; The search for a polis and an oikia befittinthis "oid and unpresupposable co<<unity is the infantile tas8 of future -enerations; 4iorgio 5gam'en, &')):' NOTE$
&; 4; Gior-io A-a<ben2 ,anguage and /eath: 6he "lace of 7egativity, transI; /aren E; @in8ens 6ith Michael Hardt2 Minneapolis0 .ni"ersity of Minne: sota @ress &''&; Aristotle2 6he "olitics, transI; E; $inclair2 Har<onds6orth0 @en-uin &'142 Boo8 &2 ch; 42 pp; 4):';

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7


An Essay on the Destruction

of Experience

6o !laudia #ugafiori

O <ate<atici2 fate lu<e a tale


erroreI o spirito non ha "oce2 perche do"Ae "oce e corpo;

J9 <athe<aticians2 shed li-ht on


error such as thisI The spirit has no "oice2 because 6here there is "oice there is body;K
EONARDO DA *IN#I

&9

ONE
The Buestion of experience can be approached no6adays only 6ith an ac8no6led-e<ent that it is no lon-er accessible to us; %or Dust as <odern <an has been depri"ed of his bio-raphy2 his experience has li8e6ise been expropriated; Indeed2 his inca: pacity to ha"e and co<<unicate experiences is perhaps one of the fe6 self:certainties to 6hich he can lay clai<; As lon- a-o as &'++ BenDa<in had accurately dia-nosed this Hpo"erty of experi: enceA of the <odern a-eF he located its ori-ins in the catastrophe of the %irst 3orld 3ar2 fro< 6hose battlefields0
<en returned ;;; -ro6n silent : not richer2 but poorer in co<<uni: cable experience ;;; 3hat ten years later 6as poured out in the flood <outh; And there 6as nothin- re<ar8able about that; %or ne"er has

of 6ar boo8s 6as anythin- but experience that -oes fro< <outh to

experience been contradicted <ore thorou-hly than strate-ic experi:


ence by tactical 6arfare2 econo<ic experience 'y inflation2 bodily experience by <echanical 6arfare2 <oral experience by those in po6er; A -eneration that had -one to school on a horse:dra6n streetcar no6 stood under the open s8y in a countryside in 6hich nothin- re<ained unchan-ed but the clouds2 and beneath these

clouds2 in a field of force of destructi"e torrents and explosions2 6as the tiny2 fra-ile hu<an body;A Today2 ho6e"er2 6e 8no6 that the destruction of experience no lon-er necessitates a catastrophe2 and that hu<dru< daily life in any city 6ill suffice; %or <odern <anAs a"era-e day contains "irtually nothin- that can still be translated into experience; Neither readin- the ne6spaper2 6ith its abundance of ne6s that is irretrie"ably re<ote fro< his life2 nor sittin- for <inutes on end at the 6heel of his car in a traffic Da<; Neither the Dourney throu-h the nether 6orld of the sub6ay2 nor the de<onstration that suddenly bloc8s the street; Neither the cloud of tear -as slo6ly dispersin- bet6een the buildin-s of the city centre2 nor the rapid blasts of -unfire fro< 6ho 8no6s 6hereF nor Bueuinup at a business counter2 nor "isitin- the and of #oc8ayne at
&+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

the super<ar8et2 nor those eternal <o<ents of du<b pro<iscu: ity a<on- stran-ers in lifts and buses; Modern <an <a8es his 6ay ho<e in the e"enin- 6earied by a Du<ble of e"ents2 but ho6e"er entertainin- or tedious2 unusual or co<<onplace2 harro6in- or pleasurable they are2 none of the< 6ill ha"e beco<e experience; It is this non:translatability into experience that no6 <a8es e"eryday existence intolerable : as ne"er before : rather than an alle-ed poor Buality of life or its <eanin-lessness co<pared 6ith the past >on the contrary2 perhaps e"eryday existence has ne"er been so replete 6ith <eanin-ful e"ents?; It is not until the nineteenth century that 6e find the first literary indications of this e"eryday oppressi"eness2 and certain 6ell:8no6n pa-es of Sein and 8eit on the HbanalityA of the Buotidian >in 6hich European society bet6een the 6ars 6as all too ready to reco-ni!e itself? 6ould si<ply ha"e <ade no sense e"en Dust a century earlier2 but this is precisely because the e"eryday : not the unusual : <ade up the ra6 <aterial of experience 6hich each -eneration trans<itted to the next; Hence the unreliability of tra"ellersA tales and <edie"al bestiariesF in no sense Afantas: ticalA2 they <erely de<onstrate that the unusual could not in any 6ay be translated into experience; Each e"ent2 ho6e"er co<: <onplace and insi-nificant2 thus beca<e the spec8 of i<purity around 6hich experience accrued its authority2 li8e a pearl; %or experience has its necessary correlation not in 8no6led-e but in authority : that is to say2 the po6er of 6ords and narrationF and no one no6 see<s to 6ield sufficient authority to -uarantee the truth of an experience2 and if they do2 it does not in the least occur to the< that their o6n authority has its roots in an experience; On the contrary2 it is the character of the present ti<e that all authority is founded on 6hat cannot be experi: enced2 and nobody 6ould be inclined to accept the "alidity of an authority 6hose sole clai< to le-iti<ation 6as experience; >The youth <o"e<entsA denial of the <erits of experience is eloBuent proof of this;? Hence the disappearance of the <axi< and the pro"erb2 6hich 6ere the -uise in 6hich experience stood as authority; The slo-an2 6hich has replaced the<2 is the pro"erb of hu<an8ind to 6ho< experience is lost; This does not <ean that today there are no <ore experiences2 but they are enacted outside the indi"idual; And it is interestin- that the indi"idual <erely obser"es the<2
&=

6ith relief; %ro< this point of "ie6 a "isit to a <useu< or a place of touristic pil-ri<a-e is particularly instructi"e; $tandin- face to face 6ith one of the -reat 6onders of the 6orld >let us say the patio de los leones in the Alha<bra?2 the o"er6hel<in- <aDority of people ha"e no 6ish to experience it2 preferrin- instead that the ca<era should; Of course the point is not to deplore this state of affairs2 but to ta8e note of it; %or perhaps at the heart of this apparently senseless denial there lur8s a -rain of 6isdo<2 in 6hich 6e can -li<pse the -er<inatin- seed of future experience; The tas8 6hich this essay proposes2 ta8in- up the le-acy of BenDa<inAs proDect Hof the co<in- philosophyA24 is to prepare the li8ely -round in 6hich this seed can <ature; G O$$ A story by Tiec82 titled /as ,e'ensii'erfliiss > ifeAs $uperfluity?2 depicts t6o penniless lo"ers 6ho -radually renounce all posses: sions and all outside life to the point 6here they li"e closed up in their roo<; %inally2 6hen they can no lon-er find 6ood for fuel2 they burn the 6ooden ladder connectin- their roo< 6ith the rest of the house2 and are left in isolation fro< the outside 6orld2 o6nin- nothin- and ali"e to nothin- but their lo"e; This ladder : Tiec8 -i"es us to understand : is experience2 sacrificed by the< to the fla<es of Hpure 8no6led-eA; 3hen the o6ner of the house >6ho here represents the clai<s of experience? returns and loo8s for the old ladder that led to the floor rented by the t6o youn- tenants2 Heinrich >as the <ale prota-onist is called? derides hi< 6ith these 6ords0
HHe 6ishes that old experience should support hi<2 li8e a <an on the -round 6ho 6ould raise hi<self up2 one step at a ti<e2 to the hei-hts of hi-hest understandin-F but ne"er thus 6ill he be able to attain the i<<ediate intuition of those 6ho2 li8e us2 ha"e no6 abolished all those tri"ial <o<ents of experience and its sta-es2 to sacrifice the<2 as the ancient @arsee la6 so has it2 to the li"in-2 purifyin- fla<e of pure 8no6led-e;A

Tiec8 explains the eli<ination of the ladder : i;e; experience : as a Hphilosophy of po"erty i<posed on the< by fateA; It is Dust such a Hphilosophy of po"ertyA that can explain the <odern reDection of experience by the youn- >but not only the youn-0
&5

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

fall;

H<etropolitan IndiansA and tourists2 hippies and fa<ily bread: 6inners ali8e are affiliated far <ore than they 6ould be prepared to ac8no6led-e : by the sa<e expropriation of experience?; %or they are li8e those cartoon characters of our childhood 6ho can 6al8 on thin air as lon- as they donAt notice itF once they reali!e2 once they experience this2 they are bound to

T3O
In one sense2 the expropriation of experience 6as i<plicit in the

%or this reason2 e"en if obDecti"ely their condition is a dreadful one2 there has ne"er been a <ore re"oltin- si-ht than that of a -eneration of adults 6hich2 ha"in- destroyed all re<aininpossibilities of authentic experience2 lays its o6n i<po"erish: <ent at the door of a youn-er -eneration bereft of the capacity for experience; 3hen hu<an8ind is depri"ed of effecti"e experi: ence and beco<es subDected to the i<position of a for< of experience as controlled and <anipulated as a laboratory <a!e for rats : in other 6ords2 6hen the only possible experience is horror or lies : then the reDection of experience can pro"isionally e<body a le-iti<ate defence; The 6idespread existence of dru- addiction today can also be seen in ter<s of this destruction of experience; 3hat distin: -uishes <odern addicts fro< the intellectuals 6ho disco"ered dru-s in the nineteenth century is that the latter >at least the less lucid a<on- the<? could still delude the<sel"es that they 6ere under-oin- a ne6 experience2 6hile for the for<er this is nothin- <ore than the discardin- of all experience;

foundin- proDect of <odern science;


There re<ains but <ere experience2 6hich 6hen it offers itself is called chanceF 6hen it is sou-ht after2 experi<ent; But this 8ind of experience is nothin- but a loose fa--ot2 and <ere -ropin- in the dar82 as <en at ni-ht try all <eans of disco"erin- the ri-ht road2 6hilst it 6ould be better and <ore prudent either to 6ait for day or procure a li-ht and then proceed; On the contrary the real order of experience be-ins by settin- up a li-ht2 and then sho6s the road by

it2 co<<encin- 6ith a re-ulated and di-ested2 not a <isplaced and

"a-ue course of experi<ent2 and thence deducin- axio<s2 and fro< these axio<s ne6 experi<ents ;;;A

In these 6ords of %rancis Bacon2 experience in the traditional sense : <eanin- 6hat can be translated into <axi<s and pro"erbs : is already conde<ned irretrie"ably; The distinction bet6een lo-ical truths and truths of sufficient reason >6hich eibni! for<ulates thus0 H3hen 6e expect the sun to rise to<orro6 6e are actin- as e<piricists because it has al6ays been so until today; The astrono<er alone can Dud-e 6ith sufficient reasonA? subseBuently sanctions this conde<nation; Because2 a-ainst repeated clai<s to the contrary2 <odern science has its ori-ins in an unprecedented <istrust of experience as it 6as traditionally understood >Bacon defines it as a HforestA and a H<a!eA 6hich has to be put in order?; The "ie6 throu-h GalileoAs telescope produced not certainty and faith in experience but DescartesAs doubt2 and his fa<ous hypothesis of a de<on 6hose only occupation is to decei"e our senses; The scientific "erification of experience 6hich is enacted in the experi<ent : per<ittin- sensory i<pressions to be deduced 6ith the exactitude of Buantitati"e deter<inations and2 therefore2 the prediction of future i<pressions : responds to this loss of certainty by displacin- experience as far as possible outside the indi"idual0 on to instru<ents and nu<bers; But traditional
&(

&1

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

experience thereby lost all real "alue2 %or : as de<onstrated by the last 6or8 of European culture still inte-rally based on
experience0 Montai-neAs Essays : experience is inco<patible

6ith certainty2 and once an experience has beco<e <easurable and certain2 it i<<ediately loses its authority; There is no for<ulatin- a <axi< nor tellin- a story 6here scientific la6 holds s6ay; Experience2 6ith 6hich Montai-ne concerns hi<: self2 too8 so little account of science that he -oes so far as to define its substance as a HsubDet infor<e2 Bui ne peut rentrer en production ou"ra-erei4 on 6hich it is i<possible to base any fir< Dud-e<ent >Ail nAy a aucune constante existence2 ny de notre estre2 ny de celui des obDects;;; ; Ainsin it ne se pent establir rien de certain de lAun a lAautre ;;;A?;+ The idea of experience as separate fro< 8no6led-e has beco<e so alien to us that 6e ha"e for-otten that until the birth of <odern science experience and science each had their o6n place; 3hat is <ore2 they 6ere e"en connected to different subDects; The subDect of experience 6as co<<on sense2 so<e: thin- existin- in e"ery indi"idual >AristotleAs HDud-in- principleA and the vis aestimativa of <edie"al psycholo-y2 neither of the< Buite 6hat 6e <ean by -ood sense?2 6hile the subDect of science is the noes or the acti"e intellect2 6hich is separate fro< experience2 Hi<passi"eA and Hdi"ineA >thou-h2 to be precise2 8no6led-e did not e"en ha"e a subDect in the <odern sense of an ego, but rather the sin-le indi"idual 6as the su'2*ectum in 6hich the acti"e2 uniBue and separate intellect actuated 8no6led-e?; It is in this separation bet6een experience and science that 6e ha"e to see the <eanin- : an extre<ely concrete one2 in no 6ay abstruse : of the disputes di"idin- Aristotelian interpreters in late AntiBuity and the Middle A-es on the sin-ularity and separation of the intellect and its co<<unication 6ith the subDects of experience; Mind %noes& and soul %psyche& are not one and the sa<e thin- for ancient thou-ht >nor for <edie"al thou-ht2 at least up to ABuinas?2 and the intellect is not2 as 6e are accusto<ed to thin82 a HfacultyA of the soul0 it does not belonto it in any 6ay2 but is Hseparate2 indi"iduated2 i<passi"eA2 accordin- to the celebrated Aristotelian for<ula2 and co<<u: nicates 6ith it to brin- about 8no6led-e; #onseBuently2 for AntiBuity2 the central proble< of 8no6led-e is not the relation: ship bet6een a subDect and an obDect2 but the relationship bet6een the one and the <any; Thus classical thou-ht ta8es no
&)

co-ni!ance of the Buestion of experience as such2 but 6hat is posed for us as the Buestion of experience arose naturally in AntiBuity as the Buestion of the relation >of the HparticipationA2 but also of the HdifferenceA2 as @lato 6ill say? bet6een the separate intellect and particular indi"iduals2 bet6een the one and the <any2 bet6een the intelli-ible and the sensory2 bet6een the hu<an and the di"ine; It is this difference 6hich the chorus in AeschylusA 9resteia underlines2 characteri!in- hu<an 8no6l: ed-e : a-ainst A-a<e<nonAs hu'ris : as a pathei mkthos,.3hat is learned only throu-h and after sufferin-2 and excludes any possibility of foresi-ht : that is2 of 8no6in- anythin- 6hatsoe"er 6ith certainty; Traditional experience >in the sense 6ith 6hich Montai-ne is concerned? re<ains faithful to this separation of experience and science2 hu<an 8no6led-e and di"ine 8no6led-e; It is in fact the experience of the boundary bet6een these t6o spheres; This boundary is death; Hence Montai-ne can for<ulate the ulti<ate -oal of experience as a nearin- to death : that is2 <anAs ad"ance to <aturity throu-h an anticipation of death as the extre<e li<it of experience; But for Montai-ne this li<it re<ains so<ethinthat cannot be experienced2 6hich can only be approached >Asi
nous ne pou"ons le Doindre2 nous le pou"ons approcherA?; But at

the "ery <o<ent 6hen he is ur-in- us to beco<e Hfa<iliarA 6ith death and to Hcast off its stran-enessA >Aostons luy &Aestran-ete2 pratiBuons le2 nAayon rien si sou"ent en teste Bue la <ortA? he re"erts to irony about those philosophers Hsi excellens <esna-ers du te<ps2 BuAils out essaye en la <ort <es<e de la -ouster et sa"ourer2 et ont bande leur esprit pour "oir Bue cAestoit ce passa-eF <ais it ne sont pas re"enus nous en dire les nou"ellesA;= In its search for certainty2 <odern science abolishes this separation and <a8es experience the locus : the H<ethodAF that is2 the path6ay : of 8no6led-e; But to do this it <ust be-in to recast experience and rethin8 intelli-ence2 first of all expropriat: in- their different subDects and replacin- the< 6ith a sin-le ne6 subDect; %or the -reat re"olution in <odern science 6as less a
<atter of opposin- experience to authority >the
argumentunz e

re a-ainst the arg3nentum e ver'o, 6hich are not in fact irreconcilable? than of referrin- 8no6led-e and experience to a sin-le subDect2 6hich is none other than their conDunction at an conscious: abstract Archi<edian point0 the #artesian cogito,
ness;
&'

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

Throu-h this interpolation of experience and science in a sin-le subDect >6hich2 bein- uni"ersal and bounded and at the sa<e ti<e an e-o2 unites in itself the properties of the separate intellect and the subDect of experience?2 <odern science re:effects that liberation fro< the pathei machos and that conDunction of hu<an 8no6led-e 6ith di"ine 8no6led-e 6hich constituted the precise character of the experience of the Mysteries and found their pre:scientific expression in astrolo-y2 alche<y and Neopla: tonic speculation; %or it 6as not in classical philosophy but in the sphere of the reli-ious <ysteries of late AntiBuity that the boundary bet6een the hu<an and the di"ine2 bet6een the pathei machos and pure science >6hich2 accordin- to Montai-ne2 can only be approached2 ne"er touched? 6as crossed for the first ti<e2 in the idea of unutterable pathema in 6hich the initiate experienced his o6n death >Ahe 8no6s the end of lifeA2 says @indar? and thereby acBuired the <eans Hto see a s6eeter prospect of death and ti<e -one byA; The Aristotelian conception of ho<ocentric celestial spheres as pure2 di"ine2 Hintelli-encesA2 i<<une fro< chan-e and corrup: tion and separate fro< the earthly sublunar 6orld 6hich is the site of chan-e and corruption2 redisco"ers its ori-inal sense only if it is placed in the context of a culture 6hich concei"es of experience and 8no6led-e as t6o autono<ous spheres; #on: nectin- the Hhea"ensA of a pure intelli-ence 6ith the HearthA of indi"idual experience is the -reat disco"ery of astrolo-y2 <a8init not an anta-onist2 but a necessary condition of <odern science; Only because astrolo-y >li8e alche<y2 6ith 6hich it is allied? had conDoined hea"en and earth2 the di"ine and the hu<an2 in a sin-le subDect of fate >in the 6or8 of #reation? 6as science able to unify 6ithin a ne6 e-o both science and experience2 6hich hitherto had desi-nated t6o distinct subDects; It is only because Neoplatonic Her<etic <ysticis< had brid-ed the Aristotelian separation bet6een nous and psyche and the @latonic difference bet6een the one and the <any2 6ith an e<anationist syste< in 6hich a continuous hierarchy of intelli: -ences2 an-els2 de<ons and souls >thin8 of the an-el:intelli-ences of A"icenna and Dante? co<<unicated in a AGreat #hainA 6hich be-ins and ends 6ith the One2 6as it possible to establish a sin-le subDect as the basis for Hexperi<ental scienceA; It 6as by no <eans irrele"ant that the uni"ersal <ediator of this ineffable union bet6een <ind and senses2 bet6een the corporeal and
49

incorporeal2 the di"ine and the hu<an2 6as2 in the speculati"e thou-ht of late AntiBuity and the Middle A-es2 a pneuma, a HspiritA2 since it is precisely this Hsubtle spiritA >the spiritus phantasticus of <edie"al <ysticis<? 6hich 6ill pro"ide so<e: thin- <ore than a na<e for the ne6 subDect of science2 6hich in Descartes is indeed <anifest as esprit. The 6hole de"elop<ent of <odern philosophy is contained2 li8e a chapter in 6hat $pit!er called Hhistorical se<anticsA2 by the se<antic conti-uity bet6een pnneuina:2spiritus2esprit24eist, and it is precisely because the <odern subDect of experience and 8no6led-e : li8e the "ery concept of experience : has its roots in a <ystical notion that any explication of the relationship bet6een experience and 8no6l: ed-e in <odern culture is bound to co<e up a-ainst al<ost insur<ountable difficulties; Throu-h science2 it is in fact Neoplatonic <ysticis< and astrolo-y that <a8e their entry into <odern culture2 not AristotleAs separate <ind and incorruptible cos<os; And if astrolo-y 6as subseBuently abandoned >only subseBuently0 6e <ust not for-et that Tycho Brahe2 /epler and #opernicus 6ere also astrolo-ers2 as 6as Ro-er Bacon2 a fer"ent ad"ocate of astrolo-y 6ho anticipates experi<ental science in <any respects?2 it is because its funda<ental principle : the union of experience and 8no6led-e : had been so <uch assi<ilated as a principle of the ne6 science throu-h the constitution of a ne6 subDect that its essentially <ythic:di"ine apparatus beca<e superfluous; The rationalis<Lirrationalis< 6hich is so irreduc: ably a part of our culture has a hidden -enesis in this pri<ary 8inship bet6een astrolo-y2 <ysticis< and scienceF the astrolo-: ical re"i"al a<on- Renaissance intellectuals is the <ost stri8insy<pto< of this; Historically2 this -enesis is lin8ed to 6hat has no6 been fir<ly established than8s to 3arbur-hian philolo-y0 that the hu<anistic restoration of AntiBuity 6as a restoration not of classical AntiBuity but of the culture of late AntiBuity2 in particular of Neoplatonis< and Her<eticis<; Thus a critiBue of <ysticis<2 astrolo-y and alche<y <ust necessarily i<ply a critiBue of science2 and only the reco"ery of a di<ension in 6hich science and experience 6ere each to find their o6n place of ori-in could pre"ail o"er the rationalis<Lirrationalis< oppo:
sition;

In the Mysteries2 the conDunction of experience and 8no6l: ed-e consisted of an e"ent 6ithout speech2 6hich cul<inated in
4&

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

the death and rebirth of the silenced initiate; In alche<y2 it 6as enacted in the process of #reation 6hose fulfil<ent it 6as; But in the ne6 subDect of science2 it beco<es so<ethin- no lon-er unutterable2 but so<ethin- that is already spo8en in e"ery thou-ht and e"ery utteranceF not a pathema, but a mathema in the ori-inal sense of the 6ord0 so<ethin- that is al6ays prescient in e"ery act of 8no6led-e2 the basis and subDect of e"ery thou-ht; 3e are so used to representin- the subDect as a substantial psychic reality : that is2 as a consciousness percei"ed as the site of psychic processes : that 6e for-et ho62 on its first appearance2 the HpsychicA and substantial character of the ne6 subDect 6as certainly not ob"ious; At the <o<ent of its <anifest e<er-ence in the #artesian for<ulation2 it is not in fact a psychic reality >it is neither AristotleAs psyche nor the anima of the <edie"al tradition?2 but a pure Archi<edean point >Anihil nisi punctu< petebat Archi<eds2 Buod esset fir<u< ac i<<obile ;;;A?5 6hich ca<e into bein- precisely throu-h the Buasi:<ystical reduction of all psychic content except the pure act of thou-ht;
>ACuid "ero ex its Buae ani<ae tribueba<G Nutriri "el incedereG CuandoBuide< Da< corpus non habeo2 haec BuoBue nihil sunt nisi i f -<enta; $entireG Ne<pe etia< hoc non fit sine corpore2 et per<ulta sentire "isus su< in so<nis Buae deinde ani<ad"erti <e non sensisse; #o-itareG Hic in"enio0 co-itatio estF haec sola a <e di"elli neBuit;A ?1

and the dissatisfaction 6ith 6hich2 co<pelled to abandon the i<precision of the 6ord res, he lists the traditional "ocabulary of psycholo-y >Ares co-itans2 id est <ens2 si"e ani<us2 si"e intellec: tus2 li"e ratioA?2s pausin- at the end2 6ith so<e hesitation2 on the 6ord mens >6hich2 in the &1=( %rench edition of the ;edita2 tions, beco<es esprit). None the less2 i<<ediately after >6ith a leap of lo-ic 6hose incoherence did not escape the first readers of the ;editations, notably Mersenne and Hobbes2 6ho reproa: ches Descartes o"er a deduction analo-ous to ADe suis pro<enant2 done De suis une pro<enadeA?2 this subDect is presented as a substance to 6hich2 as distinct fro< <aterial substance2 are attributed all the properties 6hich characteri!e the soul of traditional psycholo-y2 includin- sensation >ARes co-itansG Cuid est hocG Ne<pe dubitans2 intelli-ens2 affir<ans2 "e-ans2 "olens2 nolens2 i<a-inans BuoBue2 et sentiensA?;' And it is this sub: stanti"e I2 in 6hich the union of noes and psyche, experience and 8no6led-e2 ta8es place2 that pro"ides the basis on 6hich later thou-ht2 fro< Ber8eley to oc8e2 6ill build the concept of a
psychic consciousness replacin- the soul of #hristian psycholo-y

In its ori-inal pure state2 the #artesian subDect is nothin- <ore than the subDect of the "erb2 a purely lin-uistic:functional entity2 "ery si<ilar to the Hscintilla synderesisA and the Hapex of <indA of <edie"al <ysticis<2 6hose existence and duration coincide 6ith the <o<ent of its enunciation;
>H; ; ; hoc pronuntiatu<2 E-o su<2 e-o existo2 Buoties a <e profertur2 "el <ente concepitur2 necessario esse "eru<;;; E-o su<2 e-o existoF certu< est; Cuandiu aute<G Ne<pe Buandiu co-itoF na< forte etia< fieri posset2 si cessare< ab o<ni co-itatione2 ut illico totus esse desinere<;A ?(

The i<palpability and insubstantiality of this e-o is betrayed by the difficulty Descartes experiences in na<in- it and identifyinit outside the real< of the pure utterance I think, therefore I am,
44

and the nods of Gree8 <etaphysics as a ne6 <etaphysical subDect; The transfor<ation of its subDect does not lea"e traditional experience unchan-ed; Inas<uch as its -oal 6as to ad"ance the indi"idual to6ards <aturity : that is2 an anticipation of death as the idea of an achie"ed totality of experience : it 6as so<ethinco<plete in itself2 so<ethin- it 6as possible to ha"e2 not only to under-o; But once experience 6as referred instead to the subDect of science2 6hich cannot reach <aturity but can only increase its o6n 8no6led-e2 it beco<es so<ethin- inco<plete2 an Aasy<pto: ticA concept2 as /ant 6ill say2 so<ethin- it is possible only to undergo, ne"er to have: nothin- other2 therefore2 than the infinite process of 8no6led-e; Thus anyone proposin- to reco"er traditional experience today 6ould encounter a paradoxical situation; %or they 6ould ha"e to be-in first of all 6ith a cessation of experience2 a suspension of 8no6led-e; But this is not to say that they 6ould thereby ha"e redisco"ered the 8ind of experience 6hich it is possible both to under-o and to ha"e; The fact is that the old subDect of experience no lon-er exists; It has split; In its place there are no6 t6o subDects2 6hich are represented to us in a no"el at the be-innin- of the se"enteenth century >in the "ery
4+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

sa<e period 6hen /epler and Galileo are publishin- their disco"eries?2 ad"ancin- side by side2 inseparable co<panions in a Buest 6hose ad"enturousness <atches its futility; Don Cuixote2 the old subDect of 8no6led-e2 has been befud: dled by a spell and can only under-o experience 6ithout e"er ha"in- it; By his side2 $ancho @an!a2 the old subDect of experi: ence2 can only ha"e it2 6ithout e"er under-oin- it;

G O$$E$
I <antasy and e perience Nothin- can con"ey the extent of the chan-e that has ta8en place in the <eanin- of experience so <uch as the resultin- re"ersal of the status of the i<a-ination; %or AntiBuity2 the i<a-ination2 6hich is no6 expun-ed fro< 8no6led-e as HunrealA2 6as the supre<e <ediu< of 8no6led-e; As the inter<ediary bet6een the senses and the intellect2 enablin-2 in phantasy2 the union bet6een the sensible for< and the potential intellect2 it occupies in ancient and <edie"al culture exactly the sa<e role that our culture assi-ns to experience; %ar fro< bein- so<ethin- unreal2 the mundus imagina'ilis has its full reality bet6een the mundus sensi'ilis and the mundus intellegi'ilis, and is2 indeed2 the condition of their co<<unication : that is to say2 of 8no6led-e; And since2 accordin- to AntiBuity2 it is the i<a-ination 6hich for<s drea< i<a-es2 this explains the particular relationship to truth 6hich drea<s ha"e in the ancient 6orld >li8e di"ination per so<nia? and to efficacious 8no6led-e >li8e <edical treat<ent per incu'ationem). This is still true in pri<iti"e cultures; De"ereux reports that the MoDa"e >not unli8e other sha<anistic cultures? belie"e that sha<anistic po6ers and 8no6led-e of <yths2 as 6ell as the actions and chants that refer to the<2 are acBuired in drea<s : and2 <oreo"er2 that if they 6ere acBuired in a 6a8in- state2 they 6ould re<ain sterile and ineffecti"e until they 6ere drea<ed0
A sha<an2 6ho had allo6ed <e to note do6n and learn his therapeutic ritual chant2 explained that I 6ould not ha"e the sa<e

3ithin the for<ula 6ith 6hich <edie"al Aristotelianis< defines this <ediatin- function of the i<a-ination >Anihil potest ho<o intelli-ere sine phantas<ateA?2AC the ho<olo-y bet6een phantasy and experience is still perfectly clear; But 6ith Descartes and the birth of <odern science2 the function of phantasy is assu<ed by the ne6 subDect of 8no6led-e0 the e-o cogito >obser"e that in the technical "ocabulary of <edie"al philosophy2 cogitare referred rather to the discourse of the i<a-ination than to the act of intelli-ence?; Bet6een the ne6 e-o and the corporeal 6orld2 bet6een res cogitans and res e tensa, there is no need for any <ediation; The resultin- expropriation of the i<a-ination is <ade e"ident in the ne6 6ay of characteri!in- its nature0 6hile in the past it 6as not a HsubDecti"eA thin-2 but 6as rather the coincidence of subDecti"e and obDecti"e2 of internal and external2 of the sensible and the intelli-ible2 no6 it is its co<binatory and hallucinatory character2 to 6hich AntiBuity -a"e secondary
i<portance2 that is -i"en pri<acy; %ro< ha"in- been the subDect

of experience the phantas< beco<es the subDect of <ental alienation2 "isions and <a-ical pheno<ena :: in other 6ords2 e"erythin- that is excluded by real experience; II !avalcanti and Sade 1need and desire) The re<o"al of i<a-ination fro< the real< of experience2 ho6e"er2 casts a shado6 on the latter; This shado6 is desire2 the idea of experience as fu-iti"e and inexhaustible; %or accordin- to a notion already current in classical psycholo-y and subse: Buently fully de"eloped in <edie"al culture2 i<a-ination and desire are closely connected; Indeed2 the phantas<2 6hich is the true source of desire >Aphantasia ea est2 Buae totu< parit desideriu<A?2 is also : as <ediator bet6een <an and obDect : the condition for the attainability of the obDect of desire and therefore2 ulti<ately2 for desireAs satisfaction; The <edie"al disco"ery of lo"e in the 6or8s of the @ro"encal and stilnovo poets is2 fro< this point of "ie62 the disco"ery that lo"e ta8es as its subDect not the i<<ediate sensory thin-2 but the phantas<F that is2 si<ply the disco"ery of the phantas<atic character of lo"e; But -i"en the <ediatin- nature of i<a-ination2 this <eans that the phantas< is also the subDect2 not Dust the obDect2 of Eros; In fact2 since lo"e has its only site in i<a-ination2 desire ne"er directly encounters the obDect in its corporeality >hence the
45

po6er to heal because I had not e<po6ered and acti"ated his chants
throu-h oneiric learnin-; 4=

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

apparent H@latonis<A of the erotic in stilnovo and troubadour poetry?2 but an i<a-e >an Han-elA2 in the strict sense of the 6ord2 for the lo"e poets and the Arab philosophers0 a pure i<a-inseparate fro< the body2 a su'stantia separata 6hich2 throu-h its desire2 <o"es the celestial spheres?2 a Hno"a personaA 6hich is literally the product of desire >#a"alcanti0 H%or<ando di desio no"a personaA?2 6ithin 6hich the boundaries bet6een subDecti"e and obDecti"e2 corporeal and incorporeal2 desire and its obDect are abolished; It is precisely because here lo"e is not the opposition bet6een a desirin- su'*ect and an o'*ect of desire2 but has in the phantas<2 so to spea82 its subDect obDect2 that the poets can define its character >in contrast 6ith a fol amour 6hich can only consu<e its obDect 6ithout e"er bein- truly united 6ith it2 6ithout e"er experiencin- it? as a fulfilled love %fan=amors&, 6hose deli-hts ne"er end JA-ioi the <ai non finaAK; By lin8in- this 6ith A"erroesAs theory 6hich sees in the phantas< the site of co<plete union bet6een the indi"idual and the acti"e intellect2 they can transfor< lo"e into a soteriolo-ical experience; But once i<a-ination has instead been excluded fro< experi: ence as unreal2 and its place has been ta8en by the ego cogito >no6 the subDect of desire2 Hens percipiens ac appetensA2 in eibni!As 6ords?2 the status of desire chan-es radically0 it beco<es essentially insatiable; At the sa<e ti<e the phantas<2 6hich <ediated and -uaranteed the attainability of the obDect of desire >allo6in- it to be experienced?2 no6 beco<es the "ery su< of its unattainability >its inexperiencibility?; Thus in $ade >in contrast 6ith #a"alcanti?2 the desirin- I2 excited by the phan: tas< >Ail faut <onter un peu son i<a-inationA2 the $adeian characters reiterate?2 finds before it only a body2 an o'*ectum 6hich it can only consu<e and destroy 6ithout e"er beinsatisfied2 since in it the phantas< is infinitely elusi"e and hidden; The expulsion of i<a-ination fro< the sphere of experience indeed sunders 6hat Eros : as the son of @oros and @enia : united in hi<self0 desire >tied to i<a-ination2 insatiable and boundless? and need >tied to corporeal reality2 <easurable and theoretically able to be satisfied?2 in such a 6ay that they can ne"er coincide in the sa<e subDect; As the desirin- subDect2 the $adeian <an al6ays has before hi< another <an as the subDect of need2 for need is nothin- but the in"erse for< of his o6n desire and the su< of its essential otherness; It is this schis< in Eros 6hich Euliette expresses <ost acutely 6hen2 spea8in- of the special desire of the
41

che"alier2 6ho 6ants to satisfy hi<self 6ith the caput mortuum of her di-estion2 she exclai<s0 HTene!2 a lAinstant2 si "ous le desire!F vous en avez l=envie, moi *=en ai le 'esoin.= Hence the $adeian uni"erseAs necessity of per"ersion2 6hich2 by conDoinin- need and desire2 con"erts the essential frustration of desire into pleasure; %or 6hat the per"ert reco-ni!es is that it is his o6n desire >for 6hat does not belon- to hi<? that appears in the other as need; To EulietteAs state<ent he could ans6er0 H3hat you feel as the inti<ate estran-e<ent of corporeal need is 6hat I feel as the estran-ed inti<acy of desire0 your need is my 3ant- my 3ant is your need.= If2 in $ade : despite e"erythin-2 and for all the expropriation of experience 6hich he e<bodies so prophetically in the repetiti"e deliriu< of his characters : there is pleasure2 there is DoyF if in his no"els there li"es on a contorted "ersion of the pure Edenic proDect of troubadour and stilnovo poetry2 it is than8s to per"ersion2 6hich2 in the $adeian Eros2 fulfils the sa<e function 6hich stilnovo poetry entrusted to the phantas< and the 6o<an:an-el; @er"ersion is the redee<inarchan-el 6hich rises in fli-ht fro< the bloody theatre of Eros to raise the $adeian <an to hea"en; The split bet6een need and desire2 currently so <uch debated2 is not so<ethin- that can be healed "oluntaristically2 nor is it a 8not that an e"er blinder political practice can dissol"e 6ith a -esture; This should be eloBuently e"ident fro< the place of desire in "henomenology of Spirit >6hich acan2 6ith custo<ary acu<en2 6as able to theori!e as o'*et a and as desir de l=5utre). %or in He-el2 desire : 6hich e<er-es2 si-nificantly2 as the first <o<ent of self:consciousness : can only try to ne-ate its o6n obDect2 but ne"er finds satisfaction in it; Indeed2 the desirin- I achie"es a certainty of itself only throu-h suppression of the other0
#ertain of the nothin-ness of this other2 it explicitly affir<s that this nothin-ness is for it the truth of the otherF it destroys the indepen: dent obDect and thereby -i"es itself the certainty of itself;;; ; In this satisfaction2 ho6e"er2 experience <a8es it a6are that the obDect has its o6n independence; Desire and the self:certainty obtained in its -ratification are conditioned by the obDect2 for self:certainty co<es fro< supersedin- this other0 in order that this supersession can ta8e place2 there <ust be this other; Thus self:consciousness2 by its ne-ati"e relation to the obDect2 is unable to supersede itF it is really because of that relation that it produces the obDect a-ain2 and the desire as 6ell;&&
4(

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

That pleasure 6hich2 in $ade2 is <ade possible by per"ersion2 in He-el is enacted throu-h the bonds<an2 6ho <ediates the lordAs pleasure0
The lord relates hi<self <ediately to the thin- throu-h the bonds: <anF the bonds<an2 qua self:consciousness in -eneral2 also relates hi<self ne-ati"ely to the thin-2 and ta8es a6ay its independenceF but at the sa<e ti<e the thin- is independent vis2a2vis the bonds<an2 6hose ne-atin- of it2 therefore2 cannot -o the len-th of beinalto-ether done 6ith it to the point of annihilationF in other 6ords2 he only 6or8s on it; %or the lord2 on the other hand2 the i<<ediate relation beco<es throu-h this <ediation the sheer ne-ation of the thin-2 or the enDoy<ent of it; Desire fails to do this because of the thin-As independenceF but the lord2 6ho has interposed the bonds: <an bet6een it and hi<self2 ta8es to hi<self only the dependent aspect of the thin- and has the pure enDoy<ent of it; The aspect of its independence he lea"es to the bonds<an2 6ho 6or8s on it;&4

But the Buestion 6hich $adeian <an continues to as8 a<id the din of a dialectical <achine 6hich2 ad infinitum, defers its ans6er to the total social process2 is precisely this0 H3hat about the pleasure of the sla"eG And ho6 can 6e once <ore Doin the t6o split hal"es of ErosGA III E perience, quest, adventure The proble< of experience e<er-es in a specific 6ay in the <edie"al quests. %or the relationship bet6een experience and science in the <edie"al #hristian 6orld is -o"erned by a principle for 6hich Honorius of Autun 6rites an exe<plary for<ulation0 HBefore ori-inal sin2 <an 8ne6 -ood and e"il0 -ood throu-h experience %per e perientiam&, e"il throu-h science %per scientiam&. But2 after sin2 <an 8no6s e"il throu-h experience2 and -ood only throu-h science;A The Buest : that is2 the atte<pt of the <an 6ho can 8no6 -ood only per scientiam to experience it : expresses the i<possibility of unitin- science and experience in a sin-le subDect; Thus @erci"al2 6ho sees the Grail but fails to experience it2 is the e<ble<atic fi-ure of the Buest : no less than Galahad2 6hose experience of the Grail is plun-ed into the ineffable; %ro< this point of "ie62 the Grail >the i<possible "anishin- point at 6hich the brea8 in 8no6led-e is healed and the t6o parallel lines of science and experience <eet? is si<ply
4)

6hat constitutes the <atter of hu<an experience as an aporia2 literally as the absence of a road %a2poria&. Thus the Buest is the direct opposite of that scientia e perimentaalis >thou-h as such2 it also prefi-ures it? 6hose proDect 6as already drea<t of by Ro-er Bacon at the end of the Middle A-es2 and 6hich 6ill later find its codification 6ith %rancis Bacon; 3hile scientific experi<ent is indeed the construction of a sure road >of a methodos, a path? to 8no6led-e2 the quest, instead2 is the reco-nition that the absence of a road >the aporia) is the only experience possible for <an; But by the sa<e to8en2 the quest is also the opposite of the ad"enture2 6hich in the <odern a-e e<er-es as the final refu-e of experience; %or the ad"enture presupposes that there is a road to experience2 and that this road -oes by 6ay of the extraordinary and the exotic >in opposition to the fa<iliar and the co<<onplace?; Instead2 in the uni"erse of the quest the exotic and the extraordinary are only the su< of the essential aporia of e"ery experience; Thus Don Cuixote2 6ho li"es the e"eryday and the fa<iliar >the landscape of a Mancha and its inhabitants? as extraordinary2 is the subDect of a quest that is a perfect counterpart of the <edie"al ones; I* 6he >dark night= of /escartes The affinity bet6een <ystical experience and the #artesian experience of the e-o cogito is <ore concrete than one <i-ht thin8; 3e ha"e notes by Descartes such as the 9lympiques, in 6hich he describes ho6 he had be-un to understand the foundation for a <ar"ellous disco"ery %cepi intelliger funda2 mentum inventi mira'ilis&. Accordin- to Baillet2 DescartesAs first bio-rapher2 6ho transcribed these notes in the third person0
On the tenth day of No"e<ber one thousand six hundred and nineteen2 ha"in- retired Buite filled 6ith his enthusias< and entirely occupied by the thou-ht of ha"in- on that day disco"ered the foundation of the <ar"ellous science2 he had three successi"e drea<s in a sin-le ni-ht2 6hich he fancied could only ha"e co<e fro< on hi-h Jthere follo6s the account of the three drea<sK;

3hile he 6as still drea<in-2 Descartes be-an to interpret his o6n drea<F on 6a8in-2 he continued the interpretation Hcal<ly and ;;; open:eyedA0
4'

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

The fri-ht that had struc8 hi< in the second drea< 6as2 he belie"ed2 a <ar8 of synderesis2 that is to say a re<orse of conscience for the sins 6hich he <ust ha"e co<<itted throu-hout the course of his life until then; The thunderbolt that he heard 6as the si-n of the $pirit of Truth 6hich descended upon hi< to enter into hi<;&+

THREE
It is in this context that 6e <ust place the /antian for<ulation of the proble< of experience; 3hile identifyin- the content of possible experience 6ith the science of his ti<e :::na<ely2 Ne6tonian physics :: /ant none the less poses the Buestion of its subDect 6ith fresh ri-our; A-ainst the substantiali!ation of the subDect in a sin-le psychic I2 he be-ins by <a8in- a careful distinction bet6een the & think, a transcendental subDect 6hich cannot be -i"en substance or psycholo-i!ed in any 6ay2 and psycholo-ical consciousness or the e<pirical &; It is the old subDect of experience 6hich returns here to e<er-e autono<ously as the e<pirical I2 6hich is HdisDoined 6ithin itself and 6ithout relation to the identity of the subDectA2 and2 as such2 lac8s the capacity to be a basis for real 8no6led-e; Beside it2 as the condition for all 8no6led-e2 is the I think, transcendental consciousness : that is2 the synthetical unitary source of con: sciousness2 Hthan8s to 6hich only I can attribute to an identical <e the <ultiplicity of <y representationsA2 and in the absence of 6hich experience 6ould ne"er be 8no6led-e2 but only Ha rhapsody of perceptionsA; The coalescence of this duality in a sin-le subDect is explicitly refuted by /ant throu-h2 on the one hand2 the discountin- of intellectual intuition and2 on the other2 the critiBue of Apsycho: lo-ical paralo-is<A 6hich is at the root of rational psycholo-y; %or /ant2 since the transcendental subDect cannot kno3 an obDect >for this it needs the intuition furnished by sensory experience2 bein- in itself incapable of intuition?2 but can only think it, it therefore cannot e"en 8no6 itself as a substantial reality 6hich could be the obDect of a rational psycholo-y0
3e can2 ho6e"er2 lay at the foundation of this science nothin- but the si<ple and in itself perfectly contentless representation I2 6hich cannot e"en be called a conception2 but <erely a consciousness 6hich acco<panies all conceptions; By this I2 or He2 or It2 6ho or 6hich thin8s2 nothin- <ore is represented than a transcendental

#ontrary to 6hat Baillet appears to belie"e2 synderesis is not a <ere re<orse of conscienceF it is a technical ter< used in the Neoplatonic <ysticis< of the Middle A-es and the Renaissance to desi-nate the hi-hest and <ost delicate area of the soulF it is in direct co<<unication 6ith the supersensory2 and has ne"er been corrupted by ori-inal sin; @erhaps these pa-es -i"e us a -li<pse of the future experience of the e-o cogito, and furnish one <ore proof of the close proxi<ity bet6een t6o poles of our culture 6hich 6e tend all too often to percei"e as antithetical; 3e see that the cogito, li8e <ystical synderesis2 is 6hat re<ains of the soul 6hen2 at the end of a Hdar8 ni-htA2 it is stripped of all its attributes and content; The heart of this transcendental experience of the I has been si-nally described by an Arab <ystic2 Al:HallaD0 HI a< I and the attributes are no <oreF I a< I and the Bualifications are no <ore ;;; I a< the pure subDect of the "erb;A

+9

+&

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

subDect of thou-ht M x2 6hich is co-ni!ed only by <eans of the thou-hts that are its predicates2 and of 6hich2 apart fro< these2 6e cannot for< the least conception; Hence 6e are obli-ed to -o round this representation in a perpetual circle2 inas<uch as 6e <ust al6ays e<ploy it2 in order to fra<e any Dud-e<ent respectin- it; And this

here experience ceases to be <erely a <eans or a tool or a li<it of consciousness2 and beco<es the "ery essence of the ne6 absolute subDect0 its alterin- structure in the dialectical process;
This dialectical <o"e<ent 6hich consciousness exercises on itself2 and 6hich affects both its 8no6led-e and its obDect2 is precisely 6hat is called e perience %Erfahrung*... . #onsciousness 8no6s some2 thing- this obDect is the essence or the in2itself- but it is also for consciousness the in:itself; This is 6here the a<bi-uity of this truth enters; 3e see that consciousness no6 has t6o obDects0 one is the first in2itself, the second is the 'eing2for2consciousness of this in2itself. The latter appears at first si-ht to be <erely the reflection of consciousness into itself2 i;e; 6hat consciousness has in <ind is not an obDect2 but only its 8no6led-e of that obDect; But2 as 6as sho6n pre"iously2 the first obDect2 in bein- 8no6n2 is altered for consciousnessF it ceases to be the in:itself2 and beco<es so<ethinthat is the in2itself only for consciousness. And this then is the True0 the bein-:for:consciousness of this in:itself; Or2 in other 6ords2 this is the essence, or the o'*ect of consciousness; This ne6 obDect contains the nothin-ness of the first2 it is 6hat experience has <ade of it;;; ; It sho6s up here li8e this0 since 6hat first appeared as the obDect sin8s for consciousness to the le"el of its 6ay of 8no6in- it2 and since the in:itself beco<es a 'eing2for2consciousness of the in:itself2 the latter is no6 the ne6 obDect; Here6ith a ne6 pattern of consciousness co<es on the scene as 6ell2 for 6hich the essence is so<ethin- different fro< 6hat it 6as at the precedin- sta-e; It is this fact that -uides the entire series of the patterns of consciousness in their necessary seBuence;;; ; Because of this necessity2 the 6ay to $cience is itself already Science, and hence2 in "irtue of its content2 is the $cience of the e perience of consciousness..

incon"enience 6e find it i<possible to rid oursel"es of2 because consciousness in itself is not so <uch a representation -o"ernin- a particular obDect2 as a for< of representation in -eneral2 insofar as
it <ay be ter<ed co-nitionF for in and by co-nition alone do I thin8 anythin-2 ;;; %ro< all this it is e"ident that rational psycholo-y has its ori-in in a <ere <isunderstandin-; The unity of consciousness2

6hich lies at the basis of the cate-ories2 is considered to be an intuition of the subDect as an obDectF and the cate-ory of substance is applied to the intuition; But this unity is nothin- <ore than the
unity in thought, by 6hich no obDect is -i"enF to 6hich therefore the cate-ory of substance : 6hich al6ays presupposes a -i"en intuition : cannot be applied; #onseBuently2 the subDect cannot be co-ni!ed;A

Thus2 the <ost ri-orous for<ulation of the proble< of experi: ence concludes by positin- it in ter<s of the inexperiencible; But the tenacity 6ith 6hich /ant defended the splittin- of the I a-ainst all confusion and all loss of boundary sho6s ho6 he sa6 the "ery condition for the possibility of 8no6led-e precisely in this punctilious 6or8 of sur"ey 6hich <ar8ed off on all sides that transcendental di<ension 6hich His so na<ed because it borders on the transcendent2 and is thereby in dan-er of fallinnot only into the supersensory2 but into that 6hich is alto-ether senselessA; The !ritique of "ure #eason is the last place 6here the Buestion of experience 6ithin 3estern <etaphysics is accessible in its pure for< : that is2 6ithout its contradictions beinhidden; Ori-inal sin2 6ith 6hich post:/antian thou-ht be-ins2 is the reunification of the transcendental subDect and e<pirical con: sciousness in a sin-le absolute subDect;
In his Encyclopaedia, He-el presents /antian philosophy as

Heide--er ri-htly obser"es that in the phrase H$cience of the e perience of consciousness= the -eniti"e is subDecti"e2 not obDecti"e; H$cience of the e perience of consciousness= <eans0 consciousness2 the ne6 absolute subDect2 is in its essence a path
to6ards science2 an experience 1e 2per2ientia, a Hco<in-:fro<

ha"in- concei"ed of the spirit only as consciousness : that is2 as opposed to self:consciousness and e<pirical consciousness : and therefore not arri"in- at Hthe concept of the <ind as in itself and for itself2 thus as unifyin- consciousness and self:consciousnessA; The idea of experience that flo6s fro< this unity can be -rasped in the Introduction to "henomenology of Spirit : 6hich 6as ori-inally titled Science of the E perience of !onsciousness. %or
+4

and -oin-:throu-hA? 6hich is itself science; Thus experience here is si<ply the na<e for a basic characteristic of consciousness0 its essential ne-ati"ity2 its al6ays bein- 6hat it has not yet beco<e; Thus dialectic is not so<ethin- that attaches itself to 8no6led-e fro< outside0 rather2 it sho6s to 6hat point in the ne6 absolute subDect ><uch further than in the #artesian I? the essence of 8no6led-e has no6 beco<e identified 6ith the essence of
++

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

experience; The fact that consciousness has a dialectical struc:


ture <eans that it can ne"er -rasp itself as an entirety2 but is 6hole only in the total process of its beco<in-2 its Hcal"aryA; The ne-ati"e character already i<plicit in traditional experience : in so far as this 6as al6ays2 as 6e ha"e seen2 an experience of death : beco<es here the "ery structure of the hu<an bein-; Thus experience is no6 definiti"ely so<ethin- one can only under-o but ne"er ha"e; It is ne"er accessible as a totality2 it is ne"er co<plete except in the infinite approxi<ation of the total social process : li8e a Hfoa< of infinityA2 as in the i<a-e of the lines by $chiller 6hich conclude "henomenology, 6hereby He-el defines the union of science and history in 5'solute ?no3ing:
%ro< the chalice of this real< of spirits foa<s forth for hi< his o6n infinitude;A

psychic pheno<enon and the conco<itant physiolo-ical phe:


no<enon >for exa<ple2 bet6een a psychic state and a cerebral state2 or bet6een a sensation and a sti<ulus?; But it is precisely the hypothesis of psychophysiolo-ical parallelis< 6hich betrays the <etaphysical deri"ation of scientific psycholo-y >6hich Ber-son ri-htly traced bac8 to the #artesian opposition of res cogitans and res e tensa at 6or8 6ithin <an? and the i<possi: bility of its apprehendin- the fact of consciousness2 6hich it split in t6o2 si<ultaneously as a physiolo-ical process and as con: sciousness; This possibility 6as2 <oreo"er2 refuted by eibni! 6ith reference to the <echanical explanation of perception : that is2 Hthrou-h fi-ures and <o"e<entsA; H$upposin- that there 6ere a <achine2A he 6rites in ;onadology:
H6hose structure produced thou-ht2 sensation2 and perception2 6e could concei"e of it as increased in si!e 6ith the sa<e proportions

until one 6as able to enter into its interior2 as he 6ould into a
<ill; No62 on -oin- into it he 6ould find only pieces 6or8in- upon one another2 but ne"er 6ould he find anythin- to explain @er:

The supre<acy of the dialectic in our ti<e2 far beyond the li<its of the He-elian syste<2 be-innin- 6ith En-elsAs atte<pt to construct a dialectic of nature2 has its roots in this conception of the ne-ati"e and unattainable character of experience : that is2 in an expropriation of experience 6hich 6e are still lar-ely li"in-2 and 6hose dialectic >as dia2legesthai, to concentrate and tal8 throu-h? has precisely the role of conferrin- a se<blance of unity; Thus2 a critiBue of the dialectic is one of the <ost ur-ent tas8s today for a Marxian exe-esis truly freed fro< He-elianis<2 if it is true : and it is true : that it is contradictory to proclai< the abolition of the He-elian subDect >consciousness? 6hile retainin- its essential structure and content throu-h the dia: lectic; It is on the o"erridin- of the /antian opposition bet6een the transcendental and e<pirical I2 and on the substantiali!ation of the subDect in a HpsycheA2 that nineteenth:century psycholo-y constructs its central <yth0 that of a psycho:so<atic I 6hich is the incarnation of the <ystical union bet6een nous and psyche on 6hich ancient <etaphysics had foundered; $o:called scien: tific psycholo-y2 fro< %echner to 3eber and 3undt2 tries to sidestep the i<possibility of the subDect >/antAs psycholo-ical paralo-is<? bein- substanti"ated by rational psycholo-y2 and of e<pirical psycholo-y -oin- beyond the bounds of physiolo-y; It tries to reach the subDect by constructin- itself as a science of conscious facts, 6hich deri"e fro< a parallelis< bet6een the
+=

ception;A= This is the circle 6ithin 6hich nineteenth:century psycho: physiolo-y re<ains i<prisoned2 and it is 6ithin this circle that <odern psychiatry has found its space; Its basic paradox is apparent in the fran8ness 6ith 6hich Bleuler states2 at the start of his 6e t'ook of "sychiatry, that 6e cannot define conscious: ness except as Hthe subDecti"e ele<ent of a psychic processA : an ele<ent that can2 ho6e"er2 be -rasped directly Honly in its o6n
interiorityA;

It is on a critiBue of nineteenth:century psychophysiolo-y that2 at the end of the century2 Dilthey and Ber-son >and later Husserl and $cheler? base their atte<pt to -ather HlifeA into a Hpure experienceA; Instead of the conscious facts 6hich psychol: o-y sou-ht to construct throu-h their psychophysical sub: stantiali!ation2 they posited the non:substantial and purely Bualitati"e character of consciousness as re"ealed in i<<ediate experience0 the Hpure durationA of Ber-son2 the Erle'nis of Dilthey; The entire Hphilosophy of lifeA2 as 6ell as a -ood part of turn:of:the:century culture2 includin- poetry2 set out to capture this li"ed experience as introspecti"ely re"ealed in its pre: conceptual i<<ediacy; The inner sense 6hich2 for /ant2 6as 6ithout co-niti"e "alue and2 6ith its Hrhapsody of perceptionsA2
+5

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

expressed only the i<possibility of the transcendental I 8no6initself2 no6 beca<e the source of the <ost authentic experience; But it is precisely in Erle'nis=s idea of Hli"ed experienceA >as in the ideas of Hpure durationA and Hli"ed ti<eA?2 that the philosophy of life betrays its contradictions; In Erle'nis, inner experience is in fact re"ealed as a Hcurrent of consciousnessA 6hich has neither be-innin- nor end and 6hich2 bein- purely Bualitati"e2 can be neither halted nor <easured; Thus Dilthey co<pares our bein- as re"ealed in inner experience %innere Erfahrung& to a plant 6hose roots are buried in the earth and 6hich only bears its lea"es aloft2 6hile Ber-sonAs explana: tion of the act 6ith 6hich 6e accede to the flux of states of consciousness2 and to duration in its purest sense2 has recourse to intuition2 6hich he can define only in the ter<s 6ith 6hich Neoplatonic <ysticis< characteri!ed the union 6ith the One0 HIt is the direct "ision of the <ind by the <ind ;;; spontaneous consciousness2 a "ision barely distinct fro< the obDect 6hich it sees;A Or by co<parin- it to the inspiration 6hich suddenly places the 6riter Aau coeur ine<e du suDetA2 and 6hich is utterly elusi"e2 because Aif one suddenly turns to -rasp the i<pulse felt at oneAs bac82 it slips a6ay;As $o2 in the end2 the philosophy of life dele-ates to poetry >6hich ta8es up the le-acy only 6ith the benefit of in"entory2 or -ets stuc8 in a one:6ay street? or to <ysticis< >6hich ta8es it o"er 6ith enthii ;ia;sria in the in2de2siecle theosophical re"i"al? the tas8 of co<prehendin- Erle'nis : na<ely2 that pure experience 6hich is to be its foundation; It is not accidental that Dilthey should arri"e at a consideration of li"ed experience only in so far as it ceases to be H<uteA and HobscureA to beco<e HexpressionA in poetry and literature2 thereby con"ertin- the Hphilosophy of lifeA
into her<eneutics; Ber-son ends up in prophetic expectancy of

In ad"ance2 as thou-h this 6ere ob"iously correct2 one <isinterprets conscious life as a co<plex of data of HexternalA and >at best? Hinternal sensuousnessAF then one lets for<:Bualities ta8e care of co<binin- such data into 6holes; To -et rid of Hato<is<A2 one adds the theory that the for<s or confi-urations are founded on these data necessarily and the 6holes are therefore prior in the<sel"es to the parts; But2 6hen descripti"e theory of consciousness be-ins radically2 it has before it no such data and 6holes2 except perhaps as preDudices; Its be-innin- is the pure : and2 so to spea82 still du<b : psycholo-ical experience2 6hich no6 <ust be <ade to utter its o6n sense 6ith no adulteration; The truly first utterance2 ho6e"er2 is the #artesian utterance of the e-o co-ito ;;;1 3ith this concept of mute experience >in a passa-e fro< ,ectures

on Internal 6ime !onsciousness he 6rites2 6ith reference to the ori-inatin- current of inner te<porality and its relationship 6ith the subDect0 Hfor all this 6e ha"e no na<esA?2 Husserl had -ot closest to the idea of pure experience : that is2 so<ethinanterior both to subDecti"ity and to an alle-ed psycholo-ical reality; It is stran-e that he then should ha"e identified it 6ith its HexpressionA in the ego cogito, thus fro< mute to voiced. @erhaps the fact that in this passa-e the transcendental subDect is -rasped at once as an expression2 hence as so<ethin- lin-uistic2 is not accidentalF it allo6s us to Buestion both the #artesian founda: tion of certainty in the ego cogito as pronuntiatum, and DiltheyAs identification of the Erle'nis and its expression; A theory of experience truly intended to posit the proble< of ori-in in a radical 6ay 6ould then ha"e to start beyond this Hfirst expres: sionA 6ith experience as Hstill <ute so to spea8A : that is2 it 6ould

a Adiffuse <ystical intuitionA and a H"ision of the beyond in an expanded scientific experienceA; It is a-ainst this bac8-round that 6e need to place HusserlAs atte<pt to install a transcendental experience of the #artesian I 6ithin the Hcurrent of the Erle'nises=. But the contradiction he encounters head on can be -rasped in an exe<plary 6ay in a passa-e fro< the second of the !artesian ;editations. He
Buestions e<pirical psycholo-yAs potential to pro"ide a source

ha"e to as80 does a <ute experience exist2 does an infancy %in2fancy& of experience existG And2 if it does2 6hat is its
relationship to lan-ua-eG

G O$$E$
1 ;ontaigne=s fall and the unconscious In #hapter *I of the second boo8 of the Essays2 6hich2 as the title : De ,=E ercitation : su--ests2 contains a short treatise on experience2 Montai-ne refers to an incident to 6hich he see<s to attach particular i<portance; One day2 he relates2 he 6as ridin+(

for the experience of consciousness0

+1

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

not far fro< his house on a s<all2 none too steady horse2 6hen0
; ; ; one of <y youn- <en >a stron- sturdy fello6?2 <ounted upon a youn- stron-:headed horse2 and that a desperate hard <outh2 fresh2 lusty and in breath2 to she6 his coura-e2 and to out:-oe his fello6es2 fortuned 6ith <i-ht and <aine to set spurres unto hi<2 and -i"inhi< the bridle2 to co<e ri-ht into the path 6here I 6as2 and as a #olossus 6ith his 6ei-ht ridin- o"er <e and <y na-2 that 6ere both "ery little2 he o"erthre6 us both2 and <ade us fall 6ith our heeles up6ard0 so that the na- lay alon- astonied in one place2 and I in a trance -ro"ellin- on the -round ten or t6el"e paces 6ide of hi<F <y face all tonne and bruised2 <y s6ord 6hich I had in <y hand a -ood 6ay fro< <e2 <y -irdle bro8en2 6ith no <ore <otion or sense in <e than a stoc8e;

And I could not belie"e that at so -reat an astonish<ent of <e<bers and deffailance of senses the $oule could <aintain any face 6ithin2 to 8no6 herselfe;A $o<ethin- "ery si<ilar ta8es place 6hen 6e are dro6sin-2 in the first Astutterin-A of sleep2 before it has co<pletely o"erco<e us2 6hen 6e
; ; ; apprehend as it 6ere in a slu<ber2 6hat is done about us2 and 6ith a troubled and uncertaine hearin-2 follo6 the "oyces2 6hich see<e to sounde but on the out6ard li<its of our $ouleF and fra<e ans6ers accordin- to the last 6ords 6e heard2 6hich taste <ore of chance than of sense;;; ; My sto<ach 6as surchar-ed 6ith clotted bloud2 <y hands of the<sel"es 6ere still runnin- to it2 as often they are 6ont >yea a-ainst the 8no6led-e of our 6ill? 6hen 6e feel it to itch; There are <any creatures2 yea and so<e <en2 in 6ho< after they are dead 6e <ay see their <us8les to close and stirre; All <en 8no6 by experience2 there be so<e parts of our bodies 6hich often 6ithout any consent of ours doe stirre2 stand2 and lye do6n a-aine; No6 these passions2 6hich but exteriorly touch us2 cannot properly be ter<ed oursF for to <a8e the< ours2 a <an <ust 6holly be en-a-ed unto the<0 And the paines that our feet or hands feele 6hilst 6e sleepe are not ours;

In the description of the <o<ents in 6hich he -radually reco"ers his senses2 Montai-ne displays inco<parable <astery0
And 6hen I be-an to see2 it 6as 6ith so di<2 so 6ea8e and so troubled a si-ht2 that I could not discern anythin- of the li-ht;;; ; Touchin- the functions of the $oule2 they started up and ca<e in the sa<e pro-resse as those of the bodie; I percei"ed <yself all bloudyF for <y doublet 6as all sullied 6ith the bloud I had cast;;; ; Me thou-ht <y selfe had no other hold of <e but of <y lips ends; I closed <ine eyes to help >as <e see<ed? to send it forth2 and too8e a 8inde of pleasure to lin-er and lan-uishin-ly to let <y selfe -o fro< <y selfe; It 6as an i<a-ination s6i<<in- superficially in <y <inde2 as 6ea8e and as tender as all the rest0 but in truth2 not only exe<pted fro< displeasure2 but rather co<<ixt 6ith that pleasant s6eetnesse 6hich they feel that suffer the<sel"es to fall into a soft:slu<brinand sense:entrancin- sleepe;

There are2 therefore2 experiences 6hich do not belon- to us2 6hich 6e cannot call HoursA2 but 6hich2 for this "ery reason2 precisely because they are experiences of the inexperiencible2 constitute the extre<e li<it a-ainst 6hich our experience can press2 strainin- to6ards death; Montai-ne concludes0
This discourse of so sli-ht an accident is but "aine and fri"olous 6ere not the instructions I ha"e dra6ne fro< thence for <y use0 for truly2 for a <an to acBuainte hi<selfe 6ith death2 I find no better 6ay than to approach unto it;;; ; This is not <y doctrine2 it is but <y study and not another <anAs lesson2 but <ine o6ne;;;A

This <e<ory furnishes Montai-ne 6ith the pretext for a series of di-ressions2 6here the t6ili-ht state co<es to stand for a for< of experience 6hich2 albeit specific2 is also in a sense experience at its extre<e and <ost authentic2 e<ble<atically su<<in- up the entire scope of inBuiry of the Essays; Because his unconscious state appears to hi< li8e the one Hthey find the<sel"es in2 6ho< in the a-ony of death 6e see to droop and faint thoro6 6ea8nesse0 and a< of opinion 6e plaine and <oane the< 6ithout cause2 estee<in- that either they are a-itated 6ith -rie"ous pan-s or that their soule is pressed 6ith painfull co-itationsA; He adds0 HI ha"e e"er thou-ht they had their soule and body buried and asleepe0 vivit, et est vitae nescius ipse suae.
+)

T6o centuries later2 in the #everies of the Solitary @alker, Rousseau refers to an episode so si<ilar that2 6ere 6e not to see in it all that 6eary sensuality 6e are accusto<ed to find in Eean: EacBues2 6e <i-ht thin8 of a direct line of descent fro< Montai-ne0
At about six in the e"enin- I 6as on the hill leadin- do6n fro< Menil<ontant2 al<ost opposite the Dolly Gardener2 6hen so<e people 6al8in- in front of <e suddenly stepped aside and I sa6 a +'

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

Great Dane rushin- at full tilt to6ards <e2 follo6ed by a carria-e; It sa6 <e too late to be able to chec8 its speed or chan-e its course; I Dud-ed that <y only hope of a"oidin- bein- 8noc8ed do6n 6as to leap into the air at precisely the ri-ht <o<ent to allo6 the do- to pass underneath <e; This li-htnin- plan of action2 6hich I had no ti<e either to exa<ine or to put into practice2 6as <y last thou-ht before I 6ent do6n; I felt neither the i<pact nor <y fall2 nor indeed anythin- else until I e"entually ca<e to; It 6as nearly ni-ht 6hen I re-ained consciousness; I 6as in the ar<s of t6o or three youn- <en 6ho told <e 6hat had happened; The Great Dane2 unable to chec8 its onrush2 had run strai-ht into <y le-s and its co<bined <ass and speed had caused <e to fall for6ard on <y face; My upper Da62 bearin- the full 6ei-ht of <y body2 had struc8 a-ainst the extre<ely bu<py cobblestones2 and <y fall had been all the <ore "iolent because I 6as on a do6nhill slope2 so that <y head finished up lo6er than <y feet; The carria-e to 6hich the do- belon-ed 6as directly behind it and 6ould ha"e run ri-ht o"er <e had not the coach<an instantly reined up his horses; $o <uch I learned fro< those 6ho had pic8ed <e up and 6ere still holdin- <e 6hen I ca<e to; But 6hat I felt at that <o<ent 6as too re<ar8able to be passed o"er in silence; Ni-ht 6as co<in- on; I sa6 the s8y2 so<e stars2 and a fe6 lea"es; This first sensation 6as a <o<ent of deli-ht; I 6as conscious of nothin- else; In this instant I 6as bein- born a-ain2 and it see<ed as if all I percei"ed 6as filled 6ith <y frail existence; Entirely ta8en up by the present2 I could re<e<ber nothin-F I had no distinct notion

is2 as a sy<pto< of <alaise; %or the crisis of the <odern concept of experience : experience founded on the #artesian subDect : is certainly at its <ost salient in the idea of the unconscious; As its attribution to a third person2 an Es2 clearly sho6s2 unconscious experience is not a subDecti"e experience2 not an experience of the I; %ro< the /antian point of "ie62 it cannot e"en be called an experience2 for it lac8s that synthetical unity of consciousness >self:consciousness? 6hich is the funda<ent and the -uarantee of e"ery experience; None the less2 psychoanalysis sho6s us indeed that the <ost i<portant experiences are those that belon- not to the subDect2 but to HitA JEsK; The Id is not2 ho6e"er2 deaf2 as in Montai-neAs fallF for no6 the li<it of experience has been turned around0 it is no lon-er death6ards2 but bac86ards to6ards infancy; In this in"ersion of boundaries2 as also in the passa-e fro< the first to the third person2 6e <ust decipher the features of a ne6 experience; II ;odern poetry and e perience It is in the context of this crisis of experience that <odern poetry i f nds its place; %or2 on close scrutiny2 <odern poetry fro< Baudelaire on6ards is seen to be founded not on ne6 experience2 but on an unprecedented lac8 of experience; Hence the boldness 6ith 6hich Baudelaire can place shoc8 at the centre of his artistic 6or8; It is experience that best affords us protection fro< surprises2 and the production of shoc8 al6ays i<plies a -ap in experience; To experience so<ethin- <eans di"estin- it of no"elty2 neutrali!in- its shoc8 potential; Hence BaudelaireAs fascination 6ith co<<odities and <aBuilla-e : the supre<ely inexperiencible; In Baudelaire2 a <an expropriated fro< experience exposes hi<self to the force of shoc8; @oetry responds to the expropria:
tion of experience by con"ertin- this expropriation into a reason

of <yself as a person2 nor had I the least idea of 6hat had Dust
happened to <e; I did not 8no6 6ho I 6as2 nor 6here I 6asF I felt neither pain2 fear2 nor anxiety; I 6atched <y blood flo6in- as I <i-ht ha"e 6atched a strea<2 6ithout e"en thin8in- that the blood had anythin- to do 6ith <e; I felt throu-hout <y 6hole bein- such a 6onderful cal<2 that 6hene"er I recall this feelin- I can find nothin- to co<pare 6ith it in all the pleasures that stir our li"es;)

Here2 too2 a t6ili-ht unconscious state beco<es the <atrix of a specific experience : not2 ho6e"er2 an anticipation of death2 as in Montai-ne2 but rather an experience of birth >AIn this instant I 6as bein- born a-ainA? and si<ultaneously the 8ey to an inco<parable pleasure; These episodes are t6o lone <essen-ers heraldin- the sur-ine<er-ence of the concept of the unconscious in the nineteenth century2 fro< $chellin- to $chopenhauer up to its ori-inal refor<ulation in the 6or8 of %reud; This concept is of interest to us here only for its i<plications for a theory of experience : that
=9

for sur"i"in- and <a8in- the inexperiencible its nor<al condi: tion; In this perspecti"e2 the search for the Hne6A does not appear as the search for a ne6 obDect of experienceF instead2 it i<plies an eclipse and a suspension of experience; Ne6 is 6hat cannot be experienced2 because it lies Hin the depths of the un8no6nA0 the /antian thin-:in:itself2 the inexperiencible as such; Thus2 in Baudelaire >and this is the <easure of his lucidity? this search ta8es the paradoxical for< of aspirin- to the creation of a Hlieu
=&

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7


co<<unA : a co<<on place >Hc reer un poncif cAest le -enieA : to

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

create a co<<onplace is -eniusF thin8 of Baudelaireian poetic rhyth<s2 6ith their sudden footholds in banality that so struc8 @roust?; By this 6as <eant 6hat could be created only fro< a centuryAs accu<ulation of experience2 not in"ented by one indi"idual; But in a state 6here <an has been expropriated of experience2 the creation of such a Hlieu co<<unA is possible only throu-h a destruction of experience 6hich2 in the "ery <o<ent of its counterfeit authority2 suddenly discloses that this destruc: tion is really <anAs ne6 abode; Estran-e<ent2 6hich re<o"es fro< the <ost co<<onplace obDects their po6er to be experi: enced2 thus beco<es the exe<plary procedure of a poetic proDect 6hich ai<s to <a8e of the Inexperiencible the ne6 Hlieu co<<unA2 hu<anityAs ne6 experience; In this sense the <leurs du ;al are pro"erbs of the inexperiencible;
But the <ost pere<ptory obDection a-ainst the <odern con:

died2 accordin- to Ri"iere >A; ; ; it est <ort de ne pas sa"oir co<<ent on allu<e un feu2 co<<ent on ou"re une fenetreA : he died of not 8no6in- ho6 to li-ht a fire or open a 6indo6?2 is understood in the literal sense0 a refusal and ne-ation of experience;
The a6areness of an appallin- expropriation of experience2 of

ness0 Ee ne sa"ais pas au pre<ier instant Bui DAetaisA : I did not

cept of experience has been raised in the 6or8 of @roust; %or the obDect of the #echerche is not a li"ed experience but2 Buite the contrary2 so<ethin- 6hich has been neither li"ed nor experi: enced; And not e"en its sudden e<er-ence in the intermittences du coeur constitutes an experience2 fro< the point 6hen the condition of this e<er-ence is precisely a "acillation of the /antian conditions of experience0 ti<e and space; And it is not only the conditions of experience that are called into Buestion2 but also its subDect2 for the latter is undoubtedly not the <odern subDect of 8no6led-e >@roust see<s rather to ha"e in <ind certain crepuscular states2 li8e dro6siness or a loss of conscious:

an unprecedented H"oid of experienceA2 is also at the heart of Ril8eAs poetry; But unli8e Baudelaire and Ri<baud2 6ho entrust hu<anityAs ne6 experience resolutely to the inexperiencible2 he oscillates bet6een t6o contradictory 6orlds; In the an-el2 the puppet2 the acrobat and the child he holds up the fi-ures of a /asein 6hich has totally freed itself fro< all experienceF on the other hand2 he e"o8es nostal-ically the thin-s in 6hich indi"id: uals Haccu<ulated the hu<anA >in the letter to Hule"ic!2 this process of Haccu<ulationA is identified 6ith 6hat <a8es thin-s the<sel"es experiencible? and 6hich 6ere thereby <ade Hli"e:: ableA %erle''aren& and HsayableA %siiglichen&, in contrast to the Happearances of thin-sA 6hich Hbear do6n fro< A<ericaA and ha"e no6 transposed their existence H6ithin the "ibration of <oneyA; The fact of bein- suspended bet6een these t6o 6orlds li8e one of the HdisinheritedA >each a-e2 he 6rites in the se"enth ele-y2 Hhas such disinherited children2 to 6ho< no lon-er 6hatAs been2 and not yet 6hatAs co<in-2 belon-sA'? is the central experience of Ril8eAs poetry2 6hich2 li8e <any 6or8s dee<ed esoteric2 has no <ysticis< in it2 but concerns the daily life of a citi!en2 of the t6entieth century;

8no6 6ho I 6as at first : is his typical for<ula2 6hose innu<erable "ariations ha"e been re-istered by @oulet?; But 6e are not e"en dealin- 6ith the Ber-sonian subDect2 to 6hose ulti<ate reality intuition -i"es us access; 3hat intuition re"eals is nothin- other than the pure succession of states of conscious: ness2 this still bein- so<ethin- subDecti"eF indeed2 the subDecti"e in its pure state2 so to spea8; 3hereas in @roust there is no lon-er really any subDect2 but only : 6ith sin-ular <aterialis< : an infinite driftin- and a casual collidin- of obDects and sensations;
Here the expropriated subDect of experience e<er-es to "alidate

6hat2 fro< the point of "ie6 of science2 can appear only as the <ost radical ne-ation of experience0 an experience 6ith neither subDect nor obDect2 absolute; ,=ine perience, of 6hich @roust
=4 =+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

; ; ; all sciences?

ho6 does -eo<etrical ideality >Dust li8e that of

proceed fro< its pri<ary intrapersonal ori-in2 6here it is a structure


6ithin the conscious space of the first in"entorAs soul2 to its ideal obDecti"ityG In ad"ance 6e see that it occurs by <eans of lan-ua-e2

%O.R;
Any ri-orous for<ulation of the Buestion of experience ine"ita: bly i<pacts on the Buestion of lan-ua-e; This is 6here full 6ei-ht <ust be -i"en to Ha<annAs critiBue of /ant2 6hich renders <eanin-less any idea of pure reason Hele"ated as a transcendental subDectA and asserted as independent of lan-ua-eF for Hnot only does the faculty of thou-ht 6holly reside in lan-ua-e2 but lan-ua-e is also reasonAs central <isunderstandinof itselfA; He ri-htly obDected a-ainst /ant that the i<<anence of lan-ua-e for any and e"ery act of thou-ht2 ho6e"er a priori, 6ould ha"e <ade necessary a HMetacritiBue of the puris< of
pure reasonA : that is2 a pur-in- of lan-ua-e2 so<ethin- 6hich

throu-h 6hich it recei"es2 so to spea82 its lin-uistic li"in- body

%Sprac'lei'&...=

could not2 ho6e"er2 be posited in the ter<s of the !ritique, since its proble<atic could be for<ulated only as a ho<olo-y of reason and lan-ua-e0 HReason is lan-ua-e0 logos. This is the <arro6 bone at 6hich I shall -na6 and -na6 until I die of it;A It is /antAs situatin- of the proble< of 8no6led-e on the <athe<atical <odel that pre"ented hi<2 as it did Husserl2 fro< discernin- the ori-inal place of transcendental subDecti"ity 6ithin lan-ua-e2 and therefore fro< clearly tracin- the boun: daries separatin- the transcendental and the lin-uistic; This o<ission ensures that in the !ritique transcendental appercep: tion; e<er-es2 al<ost naturally2 as an HI thin8A2 as a lin-uistic
subDect and e"en2 in one extre<ely si-nificant passa-e2 as a HtextA

Only the persistin- do<inance of the -eo<etric:<athe<atical <odel o"er the theory of 8no6led-e can <a8e any sense of the 6ay in 6hich Husserl : 6ho e"en -oes so far as to state that HOne is conscious of ci"ili!ation fro< the start as an i<<ediate and <ediate lin-uistic co<<unityA24 and that H<en as <en2 fello6 <en2 6orld ;;; and on the other hand2 lan-ua-e2 are inseparably intert6inedF and one is al6ays certain of their inseparable relational unity ;;;A+ : had a"oided posin- the Buestion of the ori-ins of lan-ua-e in relation to any possible transcendental perspecti"e0 HNaturally2 6e shall not -o into the -eneral proble< 6hich also arises here of the ori-in of lan-ua-e ;;;A;= But if 6e ta8e up Ha<annAs su--estion and abandon the clear: cut <odel of transcendental <athe<atics :: 6hich has such ancient roots in 3estern <etaphysics ::: to disco"er the funda: <ental and incontro"ertible condition of any theory of 8no6l: ed-e in the elucidation of its relation to lan-ua-e2 6e then see that it is in lan-ua-e that the subDect has its site and ori-in2 and that only in and throu-h lan-ua-e is it possible to shape transcendental apperception as an HI thin8A; Ben"enisteAs studies on the HNature of @ronounsA and on
H$ubDecti"ity in an-ua-eA : confir<in- Ha<annAs intuition of

the necessity for a <etacritiBue of the transcendental subDect : sho6 that it is in and throu-h lan-ua-e that the indi"idual is
constituted as a subDect; $ubDecti"ity is nothin- other than the

>NAI thin8N is the sole text of rational psycholo-y2 fro< 6hich it has to de"elop its entire scienceA?; It is this HtextualA confi-uration of the transcendental sphere 6hich2 in the absence of a specific for<ulation of the Buestion of lan-ua-e2 situates the HI thin8A in a !one 6here transcendental and lin-uistic see< to <er-e2 and 6here Ha<ann could therefore Dustly "alidate the H-enealo-ical
pri<acyA of lan-ua-e o"er pure reason; It is si-nificant that in one passa-e in the 9rigin of 4eometry, 6here Husserl speculates about the ideal obDecti"ity

spea8erAs capacity to posit hi< or herself as an e-o2 and cannot in any 6ay be defined throu-h so<e 6ordless sense of beinoneself2 nor by deferral to so<e ineffable psychic experience of the e-o2 but only throu-h a lin-uistic I transcendin- any possible
experience0 Ho6e"er this subDecti"ity <i-ht be posited in pheno<enolo-y or psycholo-y2 it is but the e<er-ence into bein- of a funda<ental property of lan-ua-e; He 6ho says e-o is He-oA; It is here that 6e find the foundation of subDecti"ity2 deter<ined by <eans of the lin-uistic

of -eo<etric obDects2 he is led to pose the Buestion of lan-ua-e as a condition of this obDecti"ity0
==

status of the person ;;; such is the or-ani!ation of lan-ua-e that it


=5

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

allo6s each spea8er to appropriate the entire lan-ua-e throu-h the desi-nation I;$

Only this exclusi"e instance of the subDect in lan-ua-e can explain the specific character of the pronoun &2 a stu<blin- bloc8 for Husserl2 6ho had co<pletely failed to -rasp it2 in so far as he belie"ed he could account for it thus0
I has its essential reali!ation in the i<<ediate representation of our o6n personality2 and that is also 6here the <eanin- of this 6ord resides in the discourse of co<<unication; Each interlocutor has his o6n repre: sentation of the I >and therefore his indi"idual concept of the I?F thus 6hat is si-nified by this 6ord chan-es 6ith each indi"idual;

In solitary discourse2 the <eanin- %(edeutvng& of

But2 here too2 Ben"eniste sho6s that it is effecti"ely i<possible to ha"e recourse to an Hi<<ediate representationA and to an Hindi"idual conceptA 6hich indi"iduals 6ould ha"e of the<: sel"es:
There is no concept I enco<passin- all the IAs uttered at e"ery sin-le <o<ent by e"ery sin-le spea8er2 in the sense that there is a concept HtreeA on 6hich all indi"idual uses of tree con"er-e; There is no lexical entity na<ed by the I; #an it then be said that the I refers to a particular indi"idualG If that 6ere so2 it 6ould be a per<anent contradiction 6ithin lan-ua-e2 and anarchy in practice0 ho6 could the sa<e ter< relate indiscri<inately to any -i"en indi"idual and at the sa<e ti<e identify the indi"idual in his particularityG 3hat 6e ha"e before us is a class of 6ords2 Hpersonal pronounsA2 6hich elude the status of all other si-ns of lan-ua-e; To 6hat does I then referG To so<ethin- "ery sin-ular2 6hich is exclusi"ely lin-uistic0 I refers to the act of indi"idual discourse in 6hich it is uttered2 and it desi-nates its spea8er; It is a ter< that can only be identified 6ithin an instance of discourse;;; ; The reality 6hich it in"o8es is the reality of discourse;A

If this is true : if the subDect has a Areality of discourseA in the sense 6hich 6e ha"e seen2 if this is nothin- other than the shado6 cast on <an by the syste< of elocutionary indicators >6hich includes not only personal pronouns but all other ter<s this, 6hich or-ani!e the subDectAs spatial and te<poral relations0 that, here, no3, yesterday, tomorro3, etc;? : it then beco<es clear to 6hat extent the transcendental sphere as subDecti"ity2 as
=1

an HI thin8A2 is in fact founded on an exchan-e bet6een the transcendental and the lin-uistic; 6he transcendental su'*ect is nothing other than the >enunciator=, and modern thought has 'een 'uilt on this undeclared assumption of the su'*ect of language as the foundation of e perience and kno3ledge. And it is this exchan-e that has allo6ed post:/antian psycholo-y to confer psycholo-ical substance on transcendental consciousness : fro< the point 6hen it e<er-ed no less than e<pirical consciousness as an; I2 as a HsubDectA; Thus2 if the ri-orous /antian distinction of the transcendental sphere <ust yet a-ain be restated2 it <ust2 ho6e"er2 at the sa<e ti<e be flan8ed by a <etacritiBue resolutely tracin- the boun: daries that separate it fro< the sphere of lan-ua-e and placinthe transcendental beyond the HtextA0 I think : in other 6ords2 beyond the subDect; The transcendental cannot be the subDecti"eF unless transcendental si<ply si-nifies0 lin-uistic; Only on this basis does it beco<e possible to pose the Buestion of experience in uneBui"ocal ter<s; %or if the subDect is <erely the enunciator2 contrary to 6hat Husserl belie"ed2 6e shall ne"er attain in the subDect the ori-inal status of experience0 Hpure2 and thereby still <ute experienceA; On the contrary2 the constitution of the subDect in and throu-h lan-ua-e is precisely the expropria: tion of this H6ordlessA experienceF fro< the outset2 it is al6ays HspeechA; A pri<ary experience2 far fro< bein- subDecti"e2 could then only be 6hat in hu<an bein-s co<es before the subDect : that is2 before lan-ua-e0 a H6ordlessA experience in the literal sense of the ter<2 a hu<an infancy %in2fancy&, 6hose boundary 6ould be <ar8ed by lan-ua-e; A theory of experience could in this sense only be a theory of in: fancy2 and its central Buestion 6ould ha"e to be for<ulated thus0 is there such a thing as human in2fancy0 Ho3 can in2fancy 'e humanly possi'le0 5nd if it is possi'le, 3here is it sited0 But it is easy to see that this in:fancy is not so<ethin- to be sou-ht2 anterior to and independent of lan-ua-e2 in a psychic reality of 6hich lan-ua-e 6ould be the expression; There are no subDecti"e psychic facts2 Hfacts of consciousnessA2 that a science of the psyche can presu<e to attain2 independent of and outside the subDect2 for the si<ple reason that consciousness is solely the subDect of lan-ua-e and cannot be defined except as : to Buote Bleuler :Athe subDecti"e attribute of psychic processesA; One can2 of course2 atte<pt to substantiate an in:fancy2 a HsilenceA of the
=(

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

subDect2 throu-h the idea of a Hflux of consciousnessA2 a pri<ary psychic pheno<enon that is fu-iti"e and intan-ibleF but once you ai< to sei!e and concreti!e this pri<ary current of the Erle'nisse, it pro"es possible only throu-h the speech of the
interior H<onolo-ueA2 and EoyceAs lucidity consists precisely in

6ordless experienceAF an infancy both hu<an and independent of lan-ua-e; But2 fro< Hu<boldt on2 lin-uistic science has de<onstrated the fatuity of any such conception of the ori-in of
lan-ua-e; H3e are al6ays susceptible to a nai"e picturin- of an

ha"in- understood that the flux of consciousness has no other reality than that of the H<onolo-ueA : to be exact2 that of lan-ua-e; Thus2 in <innegans @ake, the interior <onolo-ue can -i"e 6ay to a <ythical absolutis< of lan-ua-e beyond any Hli"ed
experienceA or any prior psychic reality; Of course one can <a8e

this hu<an infancy correspond to %reudAs unconscious2 6hich occupies the sub<er-ed part of psychic territoryF but as the Id2 as a Hthird personA2 it is in fact2 as Ben"eniste sho6s yet a-ain2 a non:person2 a non:subDect 1al2ya=i'u, the one 6ho is absent2 the
Arab -ra<<arians say?2 6hich has sense only in its opposition

to the person; There is nothin- unto6ard2 then2 6hen acan sho6s us that this Id also has no reality other than lan-ua-e2 is itself lan-ua-e; >In passin-2 it should be said that the fact of ha"in- understood the instance of the E-o and the Id in lan-ua-e places the acanian interpretation of %reudianis< decisi"ely
outside psycholo-y;?

The idea of infancy as a pre:subDecti"e Hpsychic substanceA is therefore sho6n to be as <ythical as a pre:lin-uistic subDect2 6ith infancy and lan-ua-e see<in- to refer bac8 to one another in a circle in 6hich infancy is the ori-in of lan-ua-e and lan-ua-e the ori-in of infancy; But perhaps it is in this very circle that 6e should see8 the site of experience for hu<an infancy; %or the experience2 the infancy at issue here2 cannot <erely be so<ethin6hich chronolo-ically precedes lan-ua-e and 6hich2 at a certain point2 ceases to exist in order to spill into speech; It is not a paradise 6hich2 at a certain <o<ent2 6e lea"e for e"er in order to spea8F rather2 it coexists in its ori-ins 6ith lan-ua-e : indeed2 is itself constituted throu-h the appropriation of it by lan-ua-e in each instance to produce the indi"idual as subDect; If this is true2 if 6e cannot reach infancy 6ithout encounterinlan-ua-e : 6hich see<s to -uard its -ate6ay as the an-el 6ith the fla<in- s6ord -uards the threshold of Eden : the Buestion of experience as deri"ation of the hu<an indi"idual then beco<es that of the ori-in of lan-ua-e in its double reality of longue and parole. Only by arri"in- at a point 6hen the hu<an indi"idual existed2 but lan-ua-e still did not2 could 6e enco<pass this Hpure
=)

ori-inal ti<e 6hen a co<plete <an 6ould ha"e <et his li8e2 eBually co<pleteF -radually2 bet6een the<2 lan-ua-e 6ould ha"e been for<ed; That is pure fantasy; 3e ne"er find <an separated fro< lan-ua-e2 and 6e ne"er see hi< in the act of in"entin- it;; 2 ; It is a spea8in- <an that 6e find in the 6orld2 a <an spea8in- to another <an2 and it is lan-ua-e 6hereby <an is defined as <an2A Hu<boldt 6rote; It is throu-h lan-ua-e2 then2 that the indi"idual as 8no6n to us is constituted as an indi"idual2 and lin-uistics2 ho6e"er far bac8 it -oes in ti<e2 ne"er arri"es at a chronolo-ical be-innin- of lan-ua-e2 an HanteriorA of lan-ua-e; Does this <ean that the hu<an and the lin-uistic correspond exactly2 and that the Buestion of the ori-in of lan-ua-e should he set aside as extraneous to scienceG Or rather2 that this proble< is indeed the I<passable2 in the face of 6hich science finds its true place and its ri-ourG Must 6e really renounce the possibility of reachin- this I<passable throu-h the science of lan-ua-eF this infancy 6hich alone 6ould enable the foundation of a ne6 concept of experience2 freed fro< the subDectAs conditionin-G In fact 6hat 6e <ust renounce is <erely a concept of ori-in cast in a <ould already abandoned by the natural sciences the<sel"es2 one 6hich locates it in a chronolo-y2 a pri<ary cause 6hich separates in ti<e a before and after; $uch a concept of ori-ins is useless to the hu<an sciences 6hene"er 6hat is at issue is not an HobDectA presupposin- the hu<an already behind it2 but is instead itself constituti"e of the hu<an; The ori-in of a Hbein-A of this 8ind cannot be historicized, because it is itself historicizing, and itself founds the possibility of there bein- any HhistoryA; This is 6hy e"ery theory that sees lan-ua-e as a Hhu<an in"entionA is al6ays countered 6ith one that sees it as a Hdi"ine -iftA;; The clash of these t6o ideas and the pro-ressi"e resolution of their opposition in the thou-ht of Ha<ann2 Herder and Hu<boldt <ar8ed the birth of <odern lin-uistics; But the proble< is not 6hether lan-ua-e is a menschliche Erfindung or a gottliche 4a'e, for fro< the point of "ie6 of the hu<an sciences both hypotheses border on <ythF it is to reali!e that the ori-in of lan-ua-e <ust necessarily be located at a brea8 6ith the
='

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

continual opposition of diachronic and synchronic2 historical and structural2 in 6hich it is possible to -rasp as so<e 8ind of Ar2event, or Arfaktum, the unity:difference of in"ention and -ift2 hu<an and non:hu<an2 speech and infancy; This is 6hat Ha<ann does <ost cate-orically : albeit alle-orically : 6hen he defines hu<an lan-ua-e as HtranslationA fro< di"ine lan-ua-e2 and thus identifies the ori-in of lan-ua-e and of 8no6led-e in a communicatio idiomatum bet6een hu<an and di"ine; $uch a concept of ori-ins is not in the least abstract2 nor purely hypotheticalF on the contrary2 the science of lan-ua-e can produce concrete exa<ples of it; %or 6hat is the Indo:European root2 reinstated throu-h philolo-ical co<parison of the histor: ical lan-ua-es2 if not an ori-inG An ori-in not <erely pushed bac86ards in ti<e2 but eBually representin- a present2 operati"e instance in the historical lan-ua-esG It is located in a con"er-ence of diachronic and synchronic2 6here2 as a historically unattested state of the lan-ua-e : as Hne"er spo8en lan-ua-eA2 yet still real : it -uarantees both the intelli-ibility of lin-uistic history and the synchronic coherence of the syste<; An ori-in such as this can ne"er be co<pletely resol"ed throu-h He"entsA supposed;histor: ically to ha"e occurredF it is so<ethin- that has not yet ceased to occur; 3e can define this di<ension as that of a transcendental history, 6hich in a sense constitutes the a priori li<it and structure of all historical 8no6led-e; It is on this <odel that 6e <ust "ie6 the relationship bet6een lan-ua-e and a pure2 transcendental experience 6hich2 li8e hu<an infancy2 is free both of the subDect and of any psycho: lo-ical substratu<; It is not si<ply an e"ent to be isolated chronolo-ically2 nor anythin- li8e a psychoso<atic state 6hich either child psycholo-y >at the le"el of parole) or palaeo: anthropolo-y >at the le"el of longue) could e"er construct as a hu<an e"ent independent of lan-ua-e; Ho6e"er2 it is not e"en so<ethin- that can be 6holly resol"ed 6ithin lan-ua-e2 except as a transcendental source or an .r:li<it in the sense already referred to; In terms of human infancy, e perience is the simple difference 'et3een the human and the linguistic. 6he individual as not already speaking, as having 'een and still 'eing an infant 2 this is e perience. But that there is in this sense an infancy of the indi"idual2 that there is a difference bet6een the hu<an and lin-uistic2 is not an e"ent on a par 6ith others in the real< of

hu<an history2 or a si<ple characteristic a<on- <any that


59

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

identify the species Homo sapiens. Infancy has its effect first and fore<ost on lan-ua-e2 constitutin- it and conditionin- it in an essential 6ay; %or the "ery fact that infancy exists as such : that it is2 in other 6ords2 experience as the transcendental li<it of lan-ua-e : rules out lan-ua-e as bein- in itself totality and truth; If there 6as no experience2 if there 6as no infancy2 lan-ua-e 6ould undoubtedly be a H-a<eA in 3itt-ensteinAs sense2 its truth coincidin- 6ith its correct usa-e accordin- to lo-ical rules; But fro< the point 6here there is experience2 6here there is infancy2 6hose expropriation is the subDect of lan-ua-e2 then lan-ua-e appears as the place 6here experience <ust beco<e truth; In other 6ords infancy as .r:li<it in lan-ua-e e<er-es throu-h constitutin- it as the site of truth; 3hat 3itt-enstein posits2 at the end of the 6ractatus, as the H<ysticalA li<it of lan-ua-e is not a psychic reality located outside or beyond lan-ua-e in so<e nebulous so:called H<ystical experienceA2 it is the "ery transcen: dental ori-in of lan-ua-e2 nothin- other than infancy; 6he ineffa'le is, in reality, infancy. Experience is the mysterion 6hich e"ery indi"idual intuits fro< the fact of ha"in- an infancy; This <ystery is not an oath of silence or <ystical ineffabilityF on the contrary2 it is the "o6 that co<<its the indi"idual to speech and to truth; Eust as infancy destines lan-ua-e to truth2 so lan-ua-e constitutes truth as the destiny of experience; Truth is not thereby so<ethin- that can be defined 6ithin lan-ua-e2 nor e"en outside it2 as a -i"en fact or as an HeBuationA bet6een this and lan-ua-e0 infancy2 truth and lan-ua-e are li<ited and constituted respecti"ely in a pri<ary2 historico:transcendental relation in the sense already noted; But infancy has another2 <ore decisi"e conseBuence for
lan-ua-e; It sets up in lan-ua-e that split bet6een language and

discourse 6hich exclusi"ely and funda<entally characteri!es hu<an lan-ua-e; %or the fact that there is a difference bet6een lan-ua-e 1langue) and speech 1parole), and that it is possible to pass fro< one to the other2 and that each spea8in- indi"idual is the site of this difference and this passa-e2 is neither natural nor self:e"ident2 but the central pheno<enon of hu<an lan-ua-e; Only no62 than8s once <ore to Ben"enisteAs studies2 do 6e be-in to discern this proble<atic2 and its i<portance as the essential tas8 6ith 6hich any future science of lan-ua-e 6ill be put to the test; It is not lan-ua-e in -eneral that <ar8s out the hu<an fro< other li"in- bein-s : accordin- to the 3estern <etaphysical
5&

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

tradition that sees <an as a zoon logon echon >an ani<al endo6ed 6ith speech? : but the split bet6een lan-ua-e and speech2 bet6een se<iotic and se<antic >in Ben"enisteAs sense?2 bet6een si-n syste< and discourse; Ani<als are not in fact denied lan-ua-eF on the contrary2 they are al6ays and totally lan-ua-e; In the< la voi sacree de la terre ingenue >the sacred "oice of the un8no6in- earth? :: 6hich Mallar<e2 hearin- the chirp of a cric8et2 sets a-ainst the hu<an "oice as une and non2 decomposee >one and indi"isible? : 8no6s no brea8s or inter: ruptions; Ani<als do not enter lan-ua-e2 they are already inside
it; Man2 instead2 by ha"in- an infancy2 by precedin- speech2

splits this sin-le lan-ua-e and2 in order to spea82 has to constitute hi<self as the subDect of lan-ua-e :: he has to say &; Thus2 if lan-ua-e is truly <anAs nature >and nature2 on reflection2 can only <ean lan-ua-e 6ithout speech2 genesis syneches, Acon: tinuous ori-inA2 by AristotleAs definition2 and to be nature <eans bein- al6ays:already inside lan-ua-e?2 then <anAs nature is split at its source2 for infancy brin-s it discontinuity and the difference bet6een lan-ua-e and discourse; The historicity of the hu<an bein- has its basis in this difference and discontinuity; Only because of this is there history2 only because of this is <an a historical bein- : only because there is a hu<an infancy2 only because lan-ua-e is not the sa<e as the hu<an2 and there is a difference bet6een lan-ua-e and dis: course2 se<iotic and se<antic; %or pure lan-ua-e is in itself ahistorical2 and nature in the absolute has no need of a history; I<a-ine a <an born already eBuipped 6ith lan-ua-e2 a <an 6ho already possessed speech; %or such a <an 6ithout infancy2
lan-ua-e 6ould not be a pre:existin- thin- to be appropriated2

pure lan-ua-e and the entry into the babble of infancy >6hen2 lin-uists tell us2 the baby for<s the phone<es of e"ery lan-ua-e in the 6orld? : is the transcendental ori-in of history; In this sense2 to experience necessarily <eans to re:accede to infancy as historyAs transcendental place of ori-in; The eni-<a 6hich infancy ushered in for <an can be dissol"ed only in history2 Dust as experience2 bein- infancy and hu<an place of ori-in2 is so<ethin- he is al6ays in the act of fallin- fro<2 into lan-ua-e and into speech; History2 therefore2 cannot be the continuous pro-ress of spea8in- hu<anity throu-h linear ti<e2 but in its essence is hiatus2 discontinuity2 epoche. That 6hich has its place of ori-in in infancy <ust 8eep on tra"ellin- to6ards and throu-h infancy; G O$$E$
I Infancy and language

and for hi< there 6ould be neither any brea8 bet6een lan-ua-e and speech nor any historicity of lan-ua-e; But such a <an 6ould thereby at once be united 6ith his natureF his nature 6ould al6ays pre:exist2 and no6here in it 6ould he find any discontinuity2 any difference throu-h 6hich any 8ind of history could be produced; i8e the ani<al2 6ho< Marx describes as Hi<<ediately at one 6ith its life acti"ityA2A he 6ould <er-e 6ith it and 6ould ne"er be able to see it as an obDect distinct fro< hi<self; It is infancy2 it is the transcendental experience of the difference bet6een lan-ua-e and speech2 6hich first opens the space of history; Thus Babel : that is2 the exit fro< the Eden of
54

The theory of infancy2 as <anAs ori-inal historico:transcendental di<ension2 beco<es <ost <eanin-ful 6hen it is related to the cate-ory of the science of lan-ua-e0 specifically2 Ben"enisteAs distinction bet6een semiotic and semantic, 6hich this theory can coherently de"elop; It is throu-h this distinction that Ben"eniste can establish a funda<ental di"ision 6ithin lan-ua-e2 one that is no6 6ell 8no6n and "ery different fro< $aussureAs cate-ories of langue and parole. 3hereas $aussureAs distinction bet6een lan-ua-e and speech is usually construed si<ply as a distinction bet6een the collecti"e and the indi"idual2 bet6een the Hsy<phonyA and its HexecutionA in phonation2 Ben"enisteAs distinction is <ore co<: plex; It touches on the Buestion of the transition fro< lan-ua-e to discourse2 a Buestion dra<atically posed by $aussure in a <anuscript as yet unpublishedF here he states that lan-ua-e exists only in relation to discourse2 and as8s 6hat separates discourse fro< lan-ua-eF or rather2 6hat allo6s us to say that at a -i"en <o<ent lan-ua-e beco<es acti"ated as discourse; *arious concepts2 he says2 are latent in lan-ua-e >i;e; clothed in lin-uistic for<?2 such as o , lake, sky, red, sad, five, sunder, see. At 6hat point and throu-h 6hat <echanis<2 6hat interplay2 and under 6hat conditions 6ill these concepts for< discourseG
5+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

This series of 6ords2 richly e"ocati"e as they are2 6ill ne"er tell one hu<an indi"idual that another2 by spea8in- the<2 6ishes to co<<unicate so<e <eanin- to hi<; This is the Buestion 6hich Ben"eniste ta8es on in a series of exe<plary studies 1,es 7iveau de l=analyse linguisticquc, 1BCD- ,a <orme et le Sens dans le langage, &'1(F Semiologie de la langue, &'1'? 6hich lead hi< to identify a dou'le signification 6ithin lan-ua-e0 t6o discrete and contrastin- si-nifyin- <odes2 the se<iotic and the se<antic;
The se<iotic desi-nates the si-nifyin- <ode pertainin- to the lin-uistic $IGN2 constitutin- it as a unity; %or the purposes of analysis2 it is possible to consider separately the t6o sides of the si-n2 but 6ithin the si-nifyin- relation2 unity it is and unity it re<ains; The only Buestion pro<pted by a si-n for its reco-nition is 6hether it exists2 and this can be ans6ered by a yes or a no0 ar're :2 chanson 2 laver 2 nerf 2 *aune 2 sur, not Eor're 2 Evanson 2 Elaver 2 Ederf 2 Esaune 2 Etur... . Ta8en in itself2 the si-n is pure correspondence 6ith itself2 and pure difference in relation to any other si-n;;; ; It exists 6hen it is reco-ni!ed as a si-nifier by all the <e<bers of the lin-uistic co<<unity;;; ; 3ith the se<antic2 6e enter into the specific <ode of si-nification en-endered by DI$#O.R$E; The Bues: tions that arise here are a function of lan-ua-e as producer of <essa-es; No6 the <essa-e is not reducible to a succession of units to be separately identifiedF it is not the addition of si-ns 6hich produces <eanin-F rather2 it is the <eanin- >the Hfor<ulationA? in its total conception2 6hich is enacted and 6hich di"ides itself into specific Hsi-nsA2 6hich are 3ORD$;;; ; The se<antic order corres: ponds to the 6orld of enunciation and the uni"erse of discourse; At issue are t6o distinct orders of ideas and t6o conceptual uni"erses2 and this can be further sho6n by the difference in criteria of "alidity reBuired by the one and the other; The se<iotic >the si-n?
<ust be RE#OGNIOEDF the se<antic >discourse? <ust be .NDER$TOOD;

translation; But 6e cannot transpose the se<iotics of one lan-ua-e into that of anotherF this is the non:potential for translation; This is 6here the difference bet6een se<iotic and se<antic lies;

The difference bet6een reco-nition and understandin- entails t6o


separate faculties of the <ind0 the ability to percei"e a correspond: ence bet6een 6hat is there and 6hat has been there before2 and the ability to percei"e the <eanin- of a ne6 enunciation;;; ; The se<iotic <ar8s a property of lan-ua-e2 the se<antic results fro< the spea8erAs enact<ent of lan-ua-e; The se<iotic si-n exists in itself2 foundin- the reality of lan-ua-e2 but it has no specific applicationF the sentence2 6hich expresses the se<antic2 can only be specific;;; ; It is 6orth -i"in- closer consideration to this note6orthy fact2 6hich see<s to elucidate the theoretical articulation 6hich 6e are stru-: -lin- to dra6 out; 3e can transpose the se<antics of one lan-ua-e into that of another2 >salva veritate=- this is the potential for
5=

Thus Ben"eniste articulates2 in all its co<plexity2 the Buestion 6hich $aussure had barely touched uponF and it is indeed Ben"enisteAs reco-nition of its central i<portance that enabled hi< to lay the -round6or8 for a fertile ne6 de"elop<ent of the science of lan-ua-e >thin8 of the theory of enunciation2 for exa<ple?; But $aussureAs Buestion >6hat separates discourse fro< lan-ua-e2 and at 6hat point can 6e say that lan-ua-e beco<es operati"e as discourseG? is no less rele"ant; In fact2 Ben"eniste reco-ni!es that the t6o orders2 se<iotic and se<an: tic2 re<ain separate and inco<<unicable2 so that in theory there can be nothin- to indicate the transition fro< one to the other0 HThe 6orld of the si-n is closed; Bet6een the si-n and the sentence there is no transition2 neither throu-h synta-<ati!ation nor other6ise; A <oat separates the<;A If this is true2 $aussureAs Buestion is <erely refor<ulated2 beco<in-0 6hy is hu<an lan-ua-e li8e this2 6ith this <oat at its sourceG 3hy is there a double si-nificationG; The theory of infancy allo6s a coherent response to this proble<; The historico:transcendental di<ension 6hich this ter< desi-nates occupies this "ery site of the H<oatA bet6een se<iotic and se<antic2 bet6een pure lan-ua-e and discourse2 and could be said to explain it; It is the fact of <anAs infancy >in other 6ords2 in order to spea82 he needs to be constituted as a subDect 6ithin lan-ua-e by re<o"in- hi<self fro< infancy? 6hich brea8s the closed 6orld of the si-n and transfor<s pure lan-ua-e into hu<an discourse2 the se<iotic into the se<antic; Because of his infancy2 because he does not spea8 fro< the "ery start2 <an cannot enter into lan-ua-e as a syste< of si-ns 6ithout radically transfor<in- it2 6ithout constitutin- it in discourse; It thus beco<es clear in 6hat sense Ben"enisteAs Hdouble si-nificationA should be construed; $e<iotic and se<antic are not in substance t6o realities but are2 rather2 the t6o transcendental li<its 6hich define and si<ultaneously are defined by <anAs infancy; The se<iotic is nothin- other than the pure pre:babble lan-ua-e of nature2 in 6hich <an shares in order to spea82 but fro< 6hich the Babel of infancy perpetually 6ithdra6s hi<; The
55

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

se<antic does not exist except in its <o<entary e<er-ence fro<

the se<iotic in the instance of discourse2 6hose ele<ents2 once uttered2 fall bac8 into pure lan-ua-e2 6hich reasse<bles the< in its <ute dictionary of si-ns; i8e dolphins2 for a <ere instant hu<an lan-ua-e lifts its head fro< the se<iotic sea of nature; But the hu<an is nothin- other than this "ery passa-e fro< pure lan-ua-e to discourseF and this transition2 this instant2 is history; II 7ature and culture, or the dou'le inheritance The opposition bet6een nature and culture2 6hich continues to be the subDect of such li"ely debate bet6een philosophers and anthropolo-ists2 i<<ediately beco<es clearer if it is translated into the fa<iliar biolo-ical ter<s of endoso<atic and esoso<atic inheritance; %ro< this perspecti"e nature can only <ean the inheritance trans<itted throu-h the -enetic code2 6hile culture is the inheritance trans<itted throu-h non:-enetic "ehicles2 the <ost i<portant of 6hich is undoubtedly lan-ua-e; Homo sapiens can thus be defined as the li"in- species 6hich is characteri!ed by a double inheritance2 6hereby natural lan-ua-e >the -enetic code? exists in tande< 6ith an esoso<atic lan-ua-e >cultural tradition?; But if 6e -o no further than these considera: tions2 6e ris8 o"erloo8in- 6hat is at the "ery heart of the proble<0 the co<plexity of interrelations bet6een the t6o for<s of inheritance2 one that can in no 6ay be reduced to a si<ple opposition; %irst and fore<ost2 it should be noted that the <ost recent studies on lan-ua-e tend to sho6 that it is not entirely a property of the esoso<atic sphere; Alon-side #ho<s8yAs refor<ulation of ideas on innate lin-uistic capacities2 enneber- has sou-ht to elucidate the biolo-ical foundations of lan-ua-e; #ertainly2 in contrast 6ith 6hat occurs in the <aDority of ani<al species >and in ter<s of 6hat Bentley and Hoy recently de<onstrated for the chirp of the cric8et2 in 6hich 6e can therefore truly see2 6ith

Mallar<e2 la voi hu<an

une et non deconiposee of nature?2

lan-ua-e is not 6holly 6ritten into the -enetic code; ThorpeAs obser"ation that certain birds depri"ed at an early sta-e of the possibility of hearin- the son- of creatures of the sa<e species produce the nor<al son- only partially2 <eans that to a certain extent they can be said to need to learn itF in the hu<an indi"idual2 exposure to lan-ua-e is indispensable for the acBuisi:
51

tion of lan-ua-e; It is a fact 6hose i<portance can ne"er be o"ere<phasi!ed in understandin- the structure of hu<an lan: -ua-e that if a child is not exposed to speech bet6een the a-es of t6o and t6el"e2 his or her potential for lan-ua-e acBuisition is definiti"ely Deopardi!ed; #ontrary to ancient traditional beliefs2 fro< this point of "ie6 <an is not the Hani<al possessinlan-ua-eA2 but instead the ani<al depri"ed of lan-ua-e and obli-ed2 therefore2 to recei"e it fro< outside hi<self; On the other hand2 alon-side this infor<ation illu<inatin- the esoso<atic aspect of lan-ua-e2 other ele<ents lead us to suppose that lan-ua-e also belon-s partly to the endoso<atic sphere0 li8e the concurrence in the chronolo-ical sta-es of lan-ua-e acBuisi: tion a<on- children throu-hout the 6orld2 noted by Ea8obson2 or the i<balance bet6een recei"ed lin-uistic infor<ation and the lin-uistic co<petence of the child2 to 6hich #ho<s8y has dra6n attention; But there is no need to thin8 in ter<s of lan-ua-e as bein- inscribed in the -enetic code2 nor has anythin- li8e a lan-ua-e -ene been identified so far; 3hat is certain is that2 as enneber- has sho6n2 6hile in the <aDority of ani<al species co<<unicati"e beha"iour in"ariably de"elops accordin- to pre: established la6s of -enetic <aturation2 so that the ani<al 6ill ulti<ately ha"e co<<and of a repertoire of si-nals characteristic of the species2 in the hu<an a separation has co<e about bet6een predisposition to lan-ua-e >readiness for co<<unica: tion? and the process of reali!in- this potentiality; In other 6ords2 hu<an lan-ua-e is split at its source into an endoso<atic sphere and an esoso<atic sphere2 bet6een 6hich there is >or can be? set up a pheno<enon of resonance 6hich produces its actuali!ation; If there is no exposure to the esoso<atic inherit: ance durin- a certain phase of brain cell de"elop<ent >6hich2 accordin- to enneber-2 has its upper li<it in the full de"elop: <ent of the cerebral he<ispheres around the a-e of t6el"e?2 then lin-uistic capacity is irretrie"ably lost; If this is true2 the duality of the endoso<atic and esoso<atic inheritances2 of nature and culture in the hu<an species2 can be understood in a ne6 6ay; It is not a <atter of Duxtaposin- t6o distinct and unconnected spheres2 but of a doubleness 6hich is already inscribed in that "ery lan-ua-e 6hich has al6ays been re-arded as the basis of culture; 3hat <ar8s hu<an lan-ua-e is not its belon-in- to either the esoso<atic or the endoso<atic sphere2 but its situation2 so to spea82 on the cusp of the t6o2 and
5(

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

its conseBuent articulation 6ithin both their difference and their


resonance; %ro< this perspecti"e the binary oppositions 6hich

are found at e"ery le"el of lan-ua-e : bet6een lan-ua-e and discourse2 bet6een the unconscious phono<atic le"el and the se<antic le"el of discourse2 bet6een for< and sense : acBuire specific si-nificance; $plit as it is bet6een an esoso<atic and an endoso<atic inheritance2 hu<an lan-ua-e <ust necessarily ha"e a structure that per<its the passa-e fro< one to the other; If 6e return to Tho<As i<a-e of t6o linear oscillators 6hich resonate2 6e see that these2 thou-h distinct2 exhibit co<<on properties enablin- the pheno<enon of resonanceF but once resonance is established2 the t6o syste<s lose their independence and for< a sin-le syste< >the resonant syste<?; 3e can li8e6ise concei"e of endoso<atic and esoso<atic2 nature and culture2 as t6o distinct
syste<s 6hich2 resonatin- in lan-ua-e2 produce a sin-le ne6

e<ployed by <an other than lan-ua-e? necessarily re<ains 6ithin the se<iotic2 and its functionin- reBuires that it be <erely recognized, not comprehended. Only hu<an lan-ua-e2 as so<e: thin- belon-in- to both the endoso<atic and the esoso<atic2 adds another sense to se<iotic <eanin-2 transfor<in- the closed 6orld of the si-n into the open 6orld of se<antic expression; $o hu<an lan-ua-e2 as Ea8obson obser"es2 is the only si-n syste< co<posed of ele<ents >phone<es? 6hich : precisely because2 as 6e ha"e seen2 they enable the passa-e fro< the se<iotic to the
se<antic :: are si<ultaneously si-nifyin- and non:si-nifyin-;

Hu<an infancy : in 6hich 6e ha"e identified the ori-ins of experience and of history : therefore acBuires its true <eanin6hen it is placed in the context of the difference bet6een esoso<atic and endoso<atic inheritance in the hu<an species; III ,evi2Strauss and the language of (a'el ocatin- infancy thus bet6een pure lan-ua-e and hu<an lan-ua-e2 bet6een se<iotic and se<antic2 -i"es us a ne6 6ay of understandin- the <eanin- of a body of 6or8 6hich has funda<entally re"i"ified the hu<an sciences in our ti<e0 that of e"i:$trauss; This is because e"i:$traussAs conception of hu<an actions is <ar8ed by his decision to <a8e sense of the< 6holly on the le"el of pure lan-ua-e P: that is2 on a le"el 6here there is no hiatus2 no infancy bet6een lan-ua-e and discourse2 se<iotic and se<antic; >It is not accidental that the <odel for his researches should deri"e fro< phonolo-y2 a science 6hich is exclusi"ely situated at the le"el of langue.) This lac8 of any brea8 bet6een lan-ua-e and discourse explains ho62 in an analysis 6hose pertinence has been ac8no6led-ed by e"i:$trauss hi<: self2 Ricoeur 6as able to define his thou-ht as a H/antis< 6ithout a transcendental subDectA2 and to spea8 about structures in ter<s of Han unconscious <ore /antian than %reudian2 a cate-orical2 co<binatory unconscious ;;; a cate-orical syste< that does not refer to a thin8in- subDect ;;; analo-ous to natureA; Because that source of ori-in 6hich2 fro< Descartes on2 6as sou-ht by philosophers in the subDect of lan-ua-e2 is found by e"i:$trauss instead >and this is his -enius? 6ith a leap beyond the subDect2 into the pure lan-ua-e of nature; But for this he needs an en-ine2 6hich2 by translatin- hu<an discourse into pure lan-ua-e2 can allo6 hi< to pass fro< the one to the other
FB

syste<; There <ust2 ho6e"er2 be a <ediatin- ele<ent 6hich enables the t6o syste<s to resonate; This ele<ent is 6hat Ea8obson described as the phono<atic le"el of lan-ua-e >or2 in learnin- ter<s2 6hat #ho<s8y constructs as uni"ersal -enerati"e -ra<<ar?; The fact that Ea8obson displaces the Buestion of the pho: ne<eAs mode and site of existence on to ontolo-y then ceases to appear as <erely an ironic procedure; @hone<es2 those differ: ential si-ns that are both Hpure and e<ptyA and Hsi-nifyin- and non:si-nifyin-A2 do not strictly belon- either to the se<iotic or the se<antic2 lan-ua-e or discourse2 for< or sense2 endoso<atic or esoso<aticF they are located in the correspondence:difference >in the chora, as @lato 6ould ha"e said? bet6een the t6o re-ions2 in a HsiteA 6hich can perhaps be described only in its topolo-y and 6hich coincides 6ith that historico:transcendental re-ion : before the subDect of lan-ua-e and 6ithout so<atic substance :: 6hich 6e ha"e defined abo"e as hu<an infancy. $tructured thus on the difference bet6een endoso<atic and esoso<atic2 bet6een nature and culture2 lan-ua-e -i"es reso: nance to the t6o syste<s and enables their co<<unication; It is this position on the 'oundary bet6een t6o si<ultaneously continuous and discontinuous di<ensions 6hich <a8es hu<an lan-ua-e able to transcend the purely se<iotic sphere and acBuire2 in Ben"enisteAs 6ords2 a Hdouble si-nificationA; E"ery lan-ua-e that is 6holly contained 6ithin a sin-le di<ension >6hether it is the chirp of the cric8et or si-n syste<s
FG

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

6ithout a split; The e"i:$traussian conception of <yth is such an en-ine; In <yth e"i:$trauss sees an inter<ediary di<ension bet6een lan-ua-e and speech0
Myth is a "erbal entity 6hich2 6ithin the sphere of lan-ua-e2 occupies a position a8in to that of the crystal in the 6orld of physical <atter; In relation to lan-ua-e Jlan-ueD2 on the one hand2 and speech %parole&, on the other2 its position indeed rese<bles that of the crystal0 an inter<ediary obDect bet6een a statistical a--re-ate of <olecules and the <olecular structure itself;

heart of the experience of the <ysteries 6as not a 8no6in-2 but a sufferin- >in AristotleAs 6ords2 =ou mathein, ally pathein=), and if this pathema 6as in its essence abstracted fro< lan-ua-e : 6as an un:spea8able2 a closed:<outhed <oanin- : then this experi: ence approxi<ated an experience of infancy in the sense 6e ha"e seen >the fact that toys 2 puerilia ludicra : featured a<on- the sacred sy<bols of initiation could accordin-ly be a useful area of

inBuiry?;

The i<plicit su--estion in e"i:$traussAs characteri!ation of <yth as Hthe <ode of discourse in 6hich the for<ula traduttore, traditore has practically no <eanin-A is that <yth thus co<es to occupy a <edian sphere bet6een the opposition of se<iotic and se<antic2 6hich Ben"eniste has indeed characteri!ed as the opposition bet6een the possibility and i<possibility of transla:
tion;

It could be said that in this sense e"i:$traussAs entire oeuvre is an en-ine 6hich transfor<s hu<an lan-ua-e into pre2(a'el lan-ua-eF history into nature; This is 6hy his analyses2 6hich are so illu<inatin- on the subDect of the passa-e fro< discourse to lan-ua-e >that is2 on the subDect of 6hat could be defined as nature in <an?2 are so<e6hat less useful on the subDect of the passa-e fro< lan-ua-e to discourse >6hat could be defined as the nature of <an?; %ro< this point of "ie62 infancy is precisely the reverse engine, transforming pure pre2(a'el language into human discourse, nature into history. I* Infancy and mystery 3ithin the perspecti"e of infancy as a source of the hu<an2 the essence of <ystical experience in AntiBuity beco<es perhaps <ore co<prehensible than has been "ariously explained by scholars; %or if 6e 8no6 that2 as pathema, it 6as ulti<ately an anticipation of death >@lutarch tells us that to die2 teleutan, and to be initiated2 telefsthai, are one and the sa<e thin-?2 the "ery ele<ent 6hich all the sources concur in seein- as essence2 and fro< 6hich the "ery na<e H<ysteryA deri"es >fro< Hmu, 6hich indicates the <oanin- sound 6hen the <outh is closed? : in other 6ords2 silence : it is 6hat has as yet found no adeBuate explanation; If it is true that in its pri<ary for<2 6hat 6as at the
19

But certainly durin- the period about 6hich 6e 8no6 <ost >6hen the <ysteries 6ere at their hei-ht2 fro< the fourth century AD on6ards?2 and probably earlier2 the ancient 6orld interprets this <ysterical infancy as a 8no6led-e 6hich cannot be spo8en of2 as a silence to be 8ept; $o2 as they appear in Gia<blicoAs De ;ysteriis, the <ysteries are no6 a Hteur-iaA2 essentially a s8ill2 a HtechniBueA for influencin- the -ods; Here the pathema beco<es anathema, the un:spea8able of infancy2 a secret doctrine 6ei-hed do6n by an oath of esoteric silence; This is 6hy it is the fable2 so<ethin- 6hich can only be narrated2 and not the <ystery2 6hich <ust not be spo8en of2 6hich contains the truth of infancy as <anAs source of ori-in; %or in the fairy tale <an is freed fro< the <ysteryAs obli-ation of silence by transfor<in- it into enchant<ent0 it is not partici: pation in a cult of 8no6led-e 6hich renders hi< speechless2 but be6itch<ent; The silence of the <ystery is under-one as a rupture2 plun-in- <an bac8 into the pure2 <ute lan-ua-e of natureF but as a spell2 silence <ust e"entually be shattered and conBuered; This is 6hy2 in the fairy tale2 <an is struc8 du<b2 and ani<als e<er-e fro< the pure lan-ua-e of nature in order to spea8; Throu-h the te<porary confusion of the t6o spheres2 it is the 6orld of the open mouth, of the Indo:European root E'ha >fro< 6hich the 6ord fable is deri"ed?2 6hich the fairy tale "alidates2 a-ainst the 6orld of the closed mouth, of the root
=<mu.

The <edie"al definition of the fable2 6hereby it is a narration in 6hich Hani<alia <uta ; ; ; ser<ocinasse fin-unturA and2 as
such2 so<ethin- essentially Hcontra natura<A2 contains a -reat

deal <ore truth than <i-ht at first appear; Indeed2 it can be said that the fairy tale is the place 6here2 throu-h the in"ersion of the cate-ories0 closed <outhLopen <outh2 pure lan-ua-eLinfancy2 <an and nature exchan-e roles before each finds their o6n place in history;
1&

IN%AN#7 AND I:II$TOR7

6hree
&; &; /ant2 !ritique of "ure Reason2 transl; E;M;D; Mei8leDohn2 ondon0 &2"ery<anAs ibrary &'+=2 p; 4+1; 4;He-el2 @heno<enolo-y2 pp; 55:1; +;ibid;2 p; ='+; =;G; "on eibni!2 Discourse on ;etaphysics, !orrespondence 3ith 5rnold and ;onadology, transi; Geor-e R; Mont-o<ery2 #hica-o0 Open #ourt &'942 p; 45=; $; H; Ber-son2 Essai sur les donnees immediates de la conscience, in 9euvres, "ol ; & 2 @aris0 @resses .ni"ersi ta i res de %rance &'5' ; 1; E; Husserl2 !artesian ;editations, transK; Dorian #airns2 Martinus NiD: (;M; de Montai-ne2 6he Essays2 %lorio translation2 &))1 edition2 pp; &)=:); );E;:E; Rousseau#everies of the Solitary @alkertransl@eter %rance 2 , ; 2
Har<onds6orth0 @en-uin &'('2 pp; +):';

NOTE$
9ne
&; 3alter BenDa<in 2 H The $toryteller A2 in Illuminationstransl; Harry Oohn , 2

hoffThe Ha-ue &'19 2;

Glas-o60 %ontana &'(+; 4; 3alter BenDa<in2 H On the @ro-ra< of the #o<in- @hilosophy A >&'&(L&)?2 transi; Mar8 Ritter 2 in Gary $<ith >ed;?(en*amin: "hilosophy5esthetics, 2 , History, #hica-o0 .ni"ersity of #hica-o @ress &')'2 pp; &:4;

';R;M; Ril8e2 6he /uino Elegies, transl; E;B; eish<an and $tephen $pender2 ondon0 Ho-arth &'+';

63o
&; %rancis Bacon2 7ovum 9rganum, ondon0 3illia< @ic8erin- &)==2 p; 19; 4; H.nfor<ed2 6ithout a shape to be 6or8ed upon;A +; HThere is no constancy in existence2 neither of our bein-2 nor that of obDects;;; ; Thus nothin- certain can be a"erred about the one or the other ;;;A =; H$o excellently <ana-in- ti<e that they ha"e tried to sa"our death itself2 and ha"e strained their <inds to apprehend this crossin- o"erF but they did not return to -i"e us ne6s of it;A 5; HArchi<edes as8ed only to ha"e one point fixed and stable;A 1; ABut 6hat of those 6hich I attributed to the "ital force2 as bein- nourished2 or 6al8in-G $ince I no6 ha"e no body2 these t6o are nothin- but fictions; $ensationG #ertainly this li8e6ise does not ta8e place 6ithout a body2 and there are <any thin-s I ha"e see<ed to be sensible of in drea<s 6hich after6ards I percei"ed not to ha"e been sensations of <ine; Thin8in-G Here I ha"e it2 : it is thou-htF this alone cannot be torn a6ay fro< <e ;;;A Descartes2 $econd Meditation2 ;editations, &)() edn2 transl; Richard o6ndes; (; H; ; ; 6e <ust at last confidently pronounce this conclusion0 NI a<2 I exist2N so often as I declare it or thin8 it2 <ust necessarily be true;;; NI a<2 I existN is certain; %or ho6 lon-2 thou-hG #ertainly2 for so lon- as I thin80 for2 perchance it <i-ht be that if I 6ere to cease fro< all thin8in- I <i-ht thereupon 6holly cease to be :A >ibid;? ); H; ; ; a thin8in- thin-2 that is2 a <ind2 or soul2 or intelli-ence2 or reason ;;;A

<our
&; E; Husserl2 9rigin of 4eometry, introduction by E; Derrida2 transl; Eohn @; ea"ey Er2 Bri-hton0 Nicholas HayesLHar"ester @ress &'()2 p; &1&; 4; ibid;2 p; &14;

+; ibid;

=; ibid;2 p; &1&; 5; E; Ben"eniste2 "ro'lemes de linguistique generale, @aris0 Galli<ard &'(42 pp. 4192 414; 1; ibid;2 p; 41&; (; /; Marx2 Economic and "hilosophical ;anuscripts of 1GDD, in ;ar 2 Engels !ollected 3or8s2 "ol; +2 transl; Martin Milli-an and Dir8 E; $trui82 ondon0 a6rence Q 3ishart &'(52 p; 4(1;

>ibid;?

'; H; ; ; a thin- that thin8s0 6hat is thisG #learly2 one that doubts2 understands2 affir<s2 denies2 6ills2 refuses2 i<a-ines too2 and feelsA >ibid;? &9; H6ithout i<a-ination2 <an has no possibility of understandin-;A &&; G;3;%; He-el2 "henomenology of Spirit, trans?; A;*; Miller2 Oxford0 #larendon @ress &'((2 p; &9'; &4; ibid;2 pp; &&5:&1; &+; A; Baillet2 $ie de ;. /escartes, @aris &1'&;

14

& 1+

ITT @ A7 AND
Reflections on History and @lay

6o !laude ,evi2Strauss

in respectful homage for his seventieth 'irthday

E"eryone 8no6s the bit in #ollodiAs no"el 6here @inocchio2 ha"in- tra"elled throu-h the ni-ht on the bac8 of the tal8indon8ey2 arri"es happily at da6n in H@laylandA; In his description of this infantile utopian republic2 #ollodi has left us the i<a-e of a uni"erse 6here there is nothin- but play0
It 6as a country unli8e any other country in the 6orld; The population 6as co<posed entirely of boys; The oldest 6ere four: teen2 and the youn-est scarcely ei-ht years old; In the street there 6as such <erri<ent2 noise and shoutin-2 that it 6as enou-h to turn anybodyAs head; There 6ere troops of boys e"ery6here; $o<e 6ere playin- 6ith nuts2 so<e 6ith ba ttledores2 so<e 6ith balls; $o<e rode "elocipedes2 others 6ooden horses; A party 6ere playin- at hide and see82 a fe6 6ere chasin- one another; Boys dressed in stra6 6ere eatin- li-hted to6F so<e 6ere recitin-2 so<e sin-in-2 so<e leapin-; $o<e 6ere a<usin- the<sel"es 6ith 6al8in- on their hands 6ith their feet in the airF others 6ere trundlin- hoops2 or stru ttinabout dressed as -enerals2 6earin- leaf hel<ets and co<<andin- a sBuadron of cardboard soldiers; $o<e 6ere lau-hin-2 so<e shout: in-2 so<e 6ere callin- outF others clapped their hands2 or 6histled2 or cluc8ed li8e a hen 6ho has Dust laid an e--; To su< it all up2 it 6as such a pande<oniu<2 such a bedla<2 such an uproar2 that not to be deafened it 6ould ha"e been necessary to stuff oneAs ears 6ith cotton 6ool; In e"ery sBuare can"as theatres had been erected ;;;A

The i<<ediate result of this in"asion of life by play is a chan-e and acceleration of ti<e0 Hin the <idst of continual -a<es and e"ery "ariety of a<use<ent2 the hours2 the days2 and the 6ee8s passed li8e li-htnin-A; As 6as to be expected2 the acceleration of ti<e does not lea"e the calendar unaltered; The calendar2 6hose essence is rhyth<2 alternation and repetition2 is no6 stopped short in the <easureless dilation of one lon- holiday; HE"ery 6ee8A : a<p: 6ic8 explains to @inocchio :Ais <ade up of six Thursdays and a $unday; Eust thin8 that the autu<n holiday be-ins on the first of Eanuary and ends the last day of Dece<ber;A If 6e are to belie"e a<p6ic8As 6ords2 the Hpande<oniu<A2
1(

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN @ A7 AND

the HuproarA and the Hbedla<A of @layland result2 therefore2 in the paralysis and destruction of the calendar; It is 6orth; d6ellin- on arnp6ic8As explanation; @e 8no6 in fact that in ancient ti<es2 and still in the present a<on- so:called pri<iti"e peoples >6hich 6e should rather call2 as e"i:$trauss su--ested2 cold societies or societies 6here history is fro!en?2 Hpande<oniu<A2 HuproarA and Hbedla<A had instead the function of institutin- and securin- the stability of the calendar; et us consider that -roup of rituals ::: co<<on to di"erse cultures2 6idely separated by ti<e and space < 6hich ethno-raphers and historians of reli-ion call ANe6 7ear cere<oniesA2 6hich are characteri!ed by or-iastic disorder2 the suspension or sub"ersion of social hierarchies2 and licence of e"ery 8ind2 6hose obDect2 in e"ery case2 is to ensure both the re-eneration of ti<e and the i f xity of the calendar; 3e ha"e a description of the cere<ony 8no6n as No2 6ith 6hich the ancient #hinese celebrated the enthrone<ent of the t6el"e -enies 6hich 3ere to preside o"er the <onths of the ne6 year;
AI <yself ha"e seen J6rites ieou 7u2 a <an of letters 6ho found this custo< unsee<lyK on e"ery ni-ht of the full <oon of the first <onth2 streets and alleys filled 6ith people2 6here the dinnin- of dru<s deafened the hea"ens and torches illu<ined the earth; The people 6ear ani<al <as8s and the <en dress as 6o<enF <instrels and Du--lers are -arbed outlandishly; Men and 6o<en -o to-ether to see this2 and they <in-le instead of a"oidin- one another; They sBuander their 6ealth2 and destroy their portion of inheritance ;;;AA

%ra!er describes the old $cottish festi"al 8no6n as callvii >bacchanal? 6hich too8 place on the last day of the year2 6hen a <an dressed in a co6hide and follo6ed by a cla<orous cro6d of boys2 6ho 6ould <a8e the hide resound by beatin- stic8s
a-ainst it2 6ent round e"ery house three ti<es in i<itation of the

sunAs path; i8e6ise akItu, the Babylonian Ne6 7ear festi"al2 6hose first phase i<plied a return to pri<ordial chaos and a sub"ersion of social order2 approxi<ated the Hfesti"al of the fatesA %zakmuk&, in 6hich au-uries for each of the t6el"e <onths of the year 6ere deter<inedF nauro!2 the @ersian Ne6 7ear2 6as also the day on 6hich the settlin- of hu<an destinies for an
entire year too8 place;

ha"e any scientific "alidity; Rather2 it can be noted that this relation bet6een rites and the calendar does not apply only to Ne6 7ear rituals; The functional relationship bet6een rites and calendar is -enerally so close that e"i:$trauss 6as able to 6rite in a recent study0 Hrites fix the sta-es of the calendar2 as localities do those of an itinerary; The latter furnish extension2 the for<er durationAF and that Hthe real function of ritual is ;;; to preser"e the continuity of li"ed experienceA;A If this is true2 and a<p6ic8As reflections are still to be ta8en seriously2 6e can hypothesi!e a relation of both correspondence and opposition bet6een play and ritual2 in the sense that both are en-a-ed in a relationship 6ith the calendar and 6ith ti<e2 but this relationship is in each case an in"erse one0 ritual fixes and structures the calendarF play2 on the other hand2 thou-h 6e do not yet 8no6 ho6 and 6hy2 chan-es and destroys it; The hypothesis of an in"erse relationship bet6een play and rite is really less arbitrary than <ay see< at first si-ht; $cholars ha"e lon- 8no6n that the real<s of play and of the sacred are closely lin8ed; Nu<erous 6ell:docu<ented researches sho6 that the ori-ins of <ost of the -a<es 8no6n to us lie in ancient sacred cere<onies2 in dances2 ritual co<bat and di"inatory practices; $o in ball -a<es 6e can discern the relics of the ritual representation of a <yth in 6hich the -ods fou-ht for possession of the sunF the circle -a<e 6as an ancient <atri<onial riteF -a<es of chance deri"e fro< oracular practicesF the spinnin-:top and the cheB: uered board 6ere tools of di"ination; In a study by Ben"eniste 6hich occupies a sin-ular place in the -reat lin-uistAs biblio-raphy2 he too8 the anthropolo-istsA con: clusions as a point of departure2 and elaborated this relation bet6een play and ritual2 as8in- not only 6hat they ha"e in co<<on2 but also ho6 they differ; %or if it is true that play deri"es fro< the real< of the sacred2 it is also true that it radically transfor<s it : indeed2 o"erturns it to the point 6here it can plausibly be defined as Atopsy:tur"y sacredA; HThe potency of the sacred actA2 6rites Ben"eniste2
resides precisely in the conDunction of the myth that articulates history and the ritual that reproduces it; If 6e <a8e a co<parison

bet6een this sche<a and that of play2 the difference appears

The conclusions that could be dra6n fro< co<parin- such di"erse rituals 6ithin such hetero-eneous cultures are unli8ely to
1)

funda<ental0 in play only the ritual sur"i"es and all that is preser"ed is the form of the sacred dra<a2 in 6hich each ele<ent is re:enacted
1'

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN @ A7 AND

ti<e and a-ain; But 6hat has been for-otten or abolished is the
<yth2 the <eanin-fully 6orded fabulation that endo6s the acts 6ith their sense and their purpose;+

Analo-ous considerations apply to the *ocus, i;e; 6ordplay0 Hin contrast to the ludus, but in a sy<<etrical <anner2 the *ocus consists in a pure myth, to 6hich there is no correspondin- ritual that can connect it to realityA; These considerations furnish Ben"eniste 6ith the ele<ents of a definition of play as structure0 Hit has its source in the sacred2 of 6hich it supplies a bro8en2 topsy:tur"y i<a-e; If the sacred can be defined as the con: substantial unity of <yth and ritual2 6e can say that play exists 6hen only one half of the sacred enact<ent is fulfilled2 translat: in- <yth alone into 6ords and ritual alone into actionsA;= The in"erse lin8 bet6een play and the sacred that a<p6ic8As considerations had su--ested is sho6n2 then2 to be substantially accurate; @layland is a country 6hose inhabitants are busy celebratin- rituals2 and <anipulatin- obDects and sacred 6ords2 6hose sense and purpose they ha"e2 ho6e"er2 for-otten; And 6e should not be a<a!ed if2 throu-h this obli"ion2 throu-h the dis<e<ber<ent and in"ersion of 6hich Ben"eniste spea8s2 they free the sacred2 too2 fro< its lin8 6ith the calendar and 6ith the cyclical rhyth< of ti<e that it sanctions2 thereby enterinanother di<ension of ti<e2 6here the hours -o by in a flash and the days are chan-eless; In play2 <an frees hi<self fro< sacred ti<e and Hfor-etsA it in hu<an ti<e; But the 6orld of play is connected to ti<e in an e"en <ore specific sense; 3e ha"e seen that e"erythin- pertainin- to play once pertained to the real< of the sacred; But this does not exhaust the real< of play; Indeed2 hu<an bein-s 8eep on in"entin- -a<es2 and it is also possible to play 6ith 6hat once pertained to the practical:econo<ic sphere; A loo8 at the 6orld of toys sho6s that children2 hu<anityAs little scrap:dealers2 6ill play 6ith 6hate"er Dun8 co<es their 6ay2 and that play thereby preser"es profane obDects and beha"iour that ha"e ceased to exist; E"erythin- 6hich is old2 independent of its sacred ori-ins2 is liable to beco<e a toy; 3hat is <ore2 the sa<e appropriation and transfor<ation in play >the sa<e illusion, one could say2 restorin- to the 6ord its ety<olo-ical <eanin-2 fro< in2ludere)
(9

can be achie"ed : for exa<ple2 by <eans of <iniaturi!ation : in relation to obDects 6hich still belon- in the sphere of use0 a car2 a pistol2 an electric coo8er are at once transfor<ed into toys2 than8s to <iniaturi!ation; But 6hat2 then2 is the essence of the toyG The essential character of the toy : the only one2 on reflection2 that can distin-uish it fro< other obDects : is so<e: thin- Buite sin-ular2 6hich can be -rasped only in the te<poral di<ension of a Honce upon a ti<eA and a Hno <oreA >presuppos: in-2 ho6e"er2 as the exa<ple of the <iniature de<onstrates2 that this Honce upon a ti<eA and this Hno <oreA be understood not only in a diachronic sense2 but also in a synchronic sense?; The toy is 6hat belon-ed : once, no longer : to the real< of the sacred or of the practical:econo<ic; But if this is true2 the essence of the toy >that Hsoul of the toyA 6hich2 Baudelaire tells us2 is 6hat babies "ainly see8 to -rasp 6hen they fid-et 6ith their toys2 sha8e the<2 thro6 the< on the -round2 pull the< apart and i f nally reduce the< to shreds? is2 then2 an e<inently historical thin-0 indeed it is2 so to spea82 the Historical in its pure state; %or in the toy2 as in no other site2 can 6e -rasp the te<porality of history in its pure differential and Bualitati"e "alue; Not in a <onu<ent2 an obDect of archaeolo-ical and scholarly research2 6hich preser"es in ti<e its practical2 docu<entary character >its H<aterial contentA2 BenDa<in 6ould ha"e said?F not in an antiBue2 6hose "alue is a function of its Buantitati"e a-ein-F not in an archi"e docu<ent2 6hich dra6s its "alue fro< its place in a chronolo-y and a relationship of proxi<ity and le-ality 6ith the past e"ent; The toy represents so<ethin- <ore and so<ethindifferent fro< all these thin-s; It has often been as8ed 6hat is left of the <odel after its transfor<ation into a toy2 for it is certainly not a <atter of its cultural si-nificance2 nor of its function2 nor e"en of its for< >6hich can be perfectly reproduced or altered al<ost beyond reco-nition2 as anyone 6ho is fa<iliar 6ith the elastic iconis< of toys 8no6s "ery 6ell?; 3hat the toy preser"es of its sacred or econo<ic <odel2 6hat sur"i"es of this after its dis<e<ber<ent or <iniaturi!ation2 is nothin- other than the hu<an te<porality that 6as contained therein0 its pure histor: ical essence; The toy is a <ateriali!ation of the historicity contained in obDects2 extractin- it by <eans of a particular <anipulation; 3hile the "alue and <eanin- of the antiBue obDect and the docu<ent are functions of their a-e : that is2 of their <a8in- present and renderin- tan-ible a relati"ely re<ote past :
(&

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN @ A7 AND

the toy2 dis<e<berin- and distortin- the past or <iniaturi!inthe present : playin- as <uch on diachrony as on synchrony 2

Hdo<ain of the babyA should define the scope of this play; Ety<olo-ists reduce the 6ord aion to a root Eai23, 6hich <eans <a8es present and renders tan-ible hu<an te<porality in itself2 H"ital forceA2 and this2 they say2 is the <eanin- that a8in 6ould the pure differential <ar-in bet6een the HonceA and the Hno ha"e had in its <ost ancient instances in the Ho<eric texts2 lon-erA; before ta8in- on that of Hspinal <arro6A and2 finally2 by a $een in this li-ht2 the toy presents certain analo-ies 6ith so<e6hat inexplicable passa-e2 that of HdurationA and HeternityA; 'ricolage, the concept used by e"i:$trauss in 6hat are no6 classic In fact2 if 6e ta8e a closer loo8 at the Ho<eric "alue of this ter<2 pa-es to illustrate ho6 <ythic thou-ht proceeds; i8e 'ricolage, 6e see that akin is often yo8ed to psyche in expressions of the the toy2 too2 uses Hcru<bsA and HscrapsA belon-in- to other 8ind0 >psyche and aion abandoned hi<A2 to indicate death; If structural 6holes >or2 at any rate <odified structural 6holes?F and psyche is the "ital principle 6hich ani<ates the body2 6hat can the toy2 too2 thereby transfor<s old si-nifieds into si-nifiers2 and be the sense here of its conDoinin- 6ith aion, except to pro<pt "ice "ersa; But 6hat it HplaysA 6ith are not si<ply these cru<bs and a si<ple repetitionG A8in >this is the only interpretation 6hich scraps2 but : as the case of <iniaturi!ation <a8es clear R the <a8es it possible to reduce these "arious <eanin-s to a coherent Hcru<bnessA2 if one can put it that 6ay2 6hich is contained in a 6hole? indicates "ital force in so far as this is percei"ed in the te<poral for< 6ithin the obDect or the structural 6hole fro< li"in- bein- as a te<poral thin-2 as so<ethin- that HenduresAF 6hich it departs; %ro< this perspecti"e the <eanin- of <iniatur: that is2 as the temporalizing essence of the li"in- bein-2 6hile i!ation as a fi-ure of the toy is sho6n to be 6ider than that 6hich psyche is the breath that ani<ates the body and thumos is 6hat e"i:$trauss confers on it 6hen he identifies in the Hreduced <odelA <o"es the li<bs; 3hen Heraclitus tells us that a8in is a child >broadly spea8in-? 6hat 'ricolage has in co<<on 6ith the 6or8 playin-2 he thereby depicts as play the te<porali!in- essence of of art; %or here <iniaturi!ation stands not so <uch for 6hat it the li"in- bein- : his or her HhistoricityA2 6e could say >e"en if the allo6s to be 8no6n of the 6hole before the parts2 or for the translation Hhistory is a child playin-A 6ould certainly be a conBuest2 in a sin-le rapacious -lance2 of 6hat is to be feared in the doubtful one?; obDect >A a poupee de lAenfant nAest plus un ad"ersaire2 un ri"al ou Alon- 6ith aion, to indicate ti<e the Gree8 lan-ua-e also <e<e un interlocuteur ;;;A : no6 the childAs doll is not an concei"es the ter< chronos, indicatin- an obDecti"e duration2 a ad"ersary2 a ri"al2 or e"en an interlocutor?2 so <uch as allo6in- the <easurable and continuous Buantity of ti<e; In a fa<ous pure te<porality contained in the obDect to be -rasped and passa-e in the 6imaeus, @lato presents the relationship bet6een en*oyed.. ;iniaturization is, in other 3ords, the cipher of history. chronos and aion as a relationship of copy and <odel2 of cyclical Thus it is not so <uch the 'ricoleur as the collector 6ho naturally ti<e <easured by the <o"e<ents of the stars and <otionless2 appears as the fi-ure closest to the player; %or Dust as antiBue synchronic te<porality; 3hat interests us here is not so <uch obDects are collected2 so are <iniatures of obDects; But in both cases that in the process of a still li"in- translation aion should be the collector extracts the obDect fro< its diachronic distance or its identified 6ith eternity and chronos 6ith diachronic ti<e as that synchronic proxi<ity and -athers it into the re<ote adDacence of our culture should concei"e fro< its "ery ori-ins a split bet6een history : into 6hat2 to paraphrase one of BenDa<inAs definitions2 t6o different2 correlated and opposed notions of ti<e; could be defined as Hune citation a lAordre du DourA2 on the final day 3e can no6 return to the relationship of correspondence and of history; opposition 6hich 6e ha"e seen connectin- play and rite2 and to If this is true : if 6hat children play 6ith is history2 and if play their in"erse situation in relation to ti<e and the calendar; In a is a relationship 6ith obDects and hu<an beha"iour that dra6s passa-e fro< ,a "ensee sauvage on adoption rites a<on- the fro< the< a pure historical:te<poral aspect : it does not then %ox Indians25 e"i:$trauss dre6 the opposition bet6een ritual see< irrele"ant that in a fra-<ent of Heraclitus :: that is to say2 and play into an exe<plary for<ula0 6hile rites transfor< e"ents at the ori-ins of European thou-ht 2 aion, ti<e in its ori-inal into structures2 play transfor<s structures into e"ents; De"elop: sense2 should fi-ure as a Hchild playin- 6ith diceA2 and that in- this definition in; the li-ht of these considerations2 6e can
(4 (+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN @ A7 AND

state that the function of rites is to adDust the contradiction bet6een <ythic past and present2 annullin- the inter"al separat: in- the< and reabsorbin- all e"ents into the synchronic struc: ture; @lay2 on the other hand2 furnishes a sy<<etrically opposed operation0 it tends to brea8 the connection bet6een past and present2 and to brea8 do6n and cru<ble the 6hole structure into e"ents; If ritual is therefore a <achine for transfor<in- dia: chrony into synchrony2 play2 con"ersely2 is a <achine for transfor<in- synchrony into diachrony; %ro< the perspecti"e 6hich interests us here2 6e can consider this a precise definition2 thou-h <odifyin- it 6ith the clarifica: tion that in either case this transfor<ation is ne"er co<plete : not only because ho6e"er far bac8 6e -o in ti<e2 and ho6e"er <uch 6e extend ethno-raphic exploration2 6e al6ays find play alon-side ritual and ritual alon-side play2 but also because e"ery -a<e2 as already noted2 contains a ritual aspect and e"ery rite an aspect of play2 6hich often <a8es it a686ard to distin-uish one fro< the other; /erenyi obser"ed2 in relation to Gree8 and Ro<an cere<onies2 that the HBuotationA of <yth 6ithin life 6hich they enacted al6ays i<plied a ludic ele<ent; 3hen Eu"enal 6ishes to characteri!e the i<piety of an obscene secret cult a<on- Ro<an 6o<en2 he 6rites0 HNil ibi per ludu< si<ulabitur obliBue o<nia fient ad "eru<A >ANo <a8e:belie"e here2 no pretenceA0 Satires), as if reli-ious pietas and ludic attitude 6ere the sa<e thin-;A And Hui!in-a 6as easily able to i fnd exa<ples of ho6 ritual beha"iour often betrays an a6are: ness of H<a8e:belie"eA 6hich har8s bac8 to the playerAs a6are:

%ro< this structural correlation bet6een ritual and play2 bet6een diachrony and synchrony2 6e can dra6 si-nificant conclusions; %or if hu<an societies appear in this li-ht as a sin-le
syste< tra"ersed by t6o opposin- tendencies2 the one operatin-

to transfor< diachrony into synchrony and the other i<pelled to6ards the contrary2 the end result of the play of these tendencies : 6hat is produced by the syste<2 by hu<an society :: is in e"ery case a differential <ar-in bet6een diachrony and synchrony0 history- in other 3ords, human time. Thus 6e find oursel"es in possession of ele<ents 6hich per<it a definition of history unfettered by the in-enuous substantial: i!ation 6hich a stubbornly ethnocentric perspecti"e has <ain: tained in the historical sciences; Indeed2 historio-raphy cannot presu<e to identify its o6n obDect in diachrony2 al<ost as if this 6ere a substantial obDecti"e reality2 rather than bein- >as the critiBues of e"i:$trauss sho6? the result of a codification usina chronolo-ical <atrixF it <ust2 li8e e"ery hu<an science2 renounce the illusion of ha"in- its obDect directly in realia, and instead fi-ure its obDect in ter<s of si-nifyin- relations bet6een t6o correlated and opposed orders0 the obDect of history is not diachrony2 but the opposition bet6een diachrony and synchrony 6hich characteri!es e"ery hu<an society; If it fi-ures historical beco<in- as a pure succession of e"ents2 as an absolute dia: chrony2 it is then constrained2 in order to sal"a-e the coherence of the syste<2 to assu<e a hidden synchrony operatin- in e"ery precise instance >representin- it as a causal la6 or as teleolo-y?2 6hose sense is re"ealed2 ho6e"er2 only dialectically in the total ness of playin-; Ritual and play appear2 rather2 as t6o tendencies social process; But the precise instance as an intersection of operatin- in e"ery society2 althou-h the one ne"er has the effect synchrony and diachrony >the absolute presence? is a pure <yth2 of eli<inatin- the other2 and althou-h one <i-ht pre"ail o"er the 6hich 3estern <etaphysics <a8es use of to -uarantee the other to a "aryin- de-ree2 they al6ays <aintain a differential continuation of its o6n dual conception of ti<e; It is not <erely <ar-in bet6een diachrony and synchrony; : as Ea8obson sho6ed for lin-uistics : that synchrony cannot be The definition 6e cited abo"e <ust2 then2 be corrected identified 6ith the static nor diachrony 6ith the dyna<ic2 but inas<uch as ritual and play are both <achines for producinthat the pure e"ent >absolute diachrony? and the pure structure differential <ar-ins bet6een diachrony and synchrony2 e"en if >absolute synchrony? do not exist; E"ery historical e"ent repre: this is effected by an in"erse <o"e<ent in the t6o cases; Indeed2 sents a differential <ar-in bet6een diachrony and synchrony2 to be <ore precise2 3e can regard ritual and play not as t3o institutin- a si-nifyin- relation bet6een the<; Historical beco<: distinct machines 'ut as a single machine, a single 'inary system, in- cannot2 therefore2 be represented as a diachronic axis2 in 3hich is articulated across t3o categories 3hich cannot 'e 6hich the points a2 b2 c2 ;;; n <ar8 out the discrete instances in isolated and across 3hose correlation and difference the very 6hich synchrony and diachrony coincide0 functioning of the system is 'ased.
(= (5

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN @ A7 AND

Ritual

Diachrony @lay

but2 rather2 as a hyperbolic cur"e 6hich expresses a series of differential <ar-ins bet6een diachrony and synchrony >hence2 in respect of 6hich2 synchrony and diachrony constitute only t6o axes of asy<ptotic reference?0

I*

Gi"en this correlation2 6e can also apprehend a <eans of articulatin- the distinction bet6een HcoldA societies2 or histor: ically stationary societies2 and HhotA societies2 or historically cu<ulati"e societies2 6hich2 startin- 6ith e"i:$trauss2 has replaced the traditional distinction bet6een historical societies and societies 6ithout history; H#oldA societies are those in 6hich the sphere of ritual tends to be enlar-ed at the expense of playF HhotA societies are those in 6hich the sphere of play tends to be enlar-ed at the expense of ritual0
#old
societies
rrr

Diachrony

History : as all anthropolo-ists no6 accept2 and as historians ha"e no trouble ac8no6led-in- : is not the exclusi"e patri<ony of so<e peoples2 co<pared 6ith 6hich other societies fi-ure as peoples 6ithout history; This is not because all societies are 6ithin ti<e2 6ithin diachrony2 but because all societies produce differential <ar-ins bet6een diachrony and synchronyF in all societies2 6hat 6e ha"e here called ritual and play 6or8 to establish si-nifyin- relations bet6een diachrony and synchrony; %ar fro< bein- identified 6ith the diachronic continuum, fro< this perspecti"e history is nothin- other than the result of the relation bet6een diachronic si-nifiers and synchronic si-nifiers produced incessantly by ritual and play : the HplayA2 as 6e could say2 usin- a <echanical "alue of the ter<2 6hich is found in <any lan-ua-es2 bet6een diachrony and synchrony0
(1

it

Hot societies @lay

If this casts history as a syste< transfor<in- ritual into play and play into ritual2 the difference bet6een the t6o 8inds of society is not so <uch Bualitati"e as Buantitati"e0 only the predo<inance of one si-nifyin- order o"er the other defines the placin- of a society as of one 8ind or the other; At one extre<e of such a classification 6e 6ould situate the case >a purely asy<ptotic case2 in reality2 since 6e 8no6 no exa<ples of such a society? of a society in 6hich all play had beco<e ritual2 all
((

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN @ A7 AND

diachrony transfor<ed into synchrony; In such a society2 6here the diachronic inter"al bet6een past and present 6ould ha"e been totally transcended2 hu<an bein-s 6ould li"e in an eternal present : in other 6ords2 in that chan-eless eternity 6hich indeed <any reli-ions set out as the d6ellin- of the -ods; At the opposite extre<e 6e 6ould situate the si<ilarly ideal case of a society 6here all ritual had been eroded by play2 and all structures disinte-rated into e"ents0 it is H@laylandA2 6here the hours -o by in a flash : or2 in Gree8 <ytholo-y2 the absolute diachrony of infernal ti<e2 sy<boli!ed by IxionAs 6heel and the toils of $isyphus; In both cases there 6ould be a lac8 of that differential <ar-in bet6een diachrony and synchrony in 6hich 6e ha"e identified hu<an ti<e : in other 6ords2 history; In this sense2 both hot societies and cold societies see< to be pursuin- : in opposite directions : the sa<e proDect2 6hich could be defined >as it has been? as the Habolition of historyA; But for no62 at least2 althou-h the for<er ha"e <ana-ed to <ultiply the <axi<u< nu<ber of diachronic si-nifiers2 and the latter to reduce the< to the <ini<u<2 no society has <ana-ed to carry out this proDect co<pletely2 foundin- a society entirely 6ithout a calendar2 li8e @layland2 Hades or e"en2 in a sense2 the society of the -ods0 in historically cu<ulati"e societies the linearity of ti<e is al6ays arrested by the calendrical alternation and repetition of holiday ti<eF in historically stationary societies circularity is al6ays interrupted by profane ti<e; The fact is that inherent in both ritual and play is an ineradicable residue2 a stu<blin- bloc8 on 6hich their proDect is doo<ed to founder; In a <ere fe6 pa-es of ,a "ensee sauvage, e"i:$trauss produced a <a-isterial analysis of those stone or 6ooden obDects 8no6n as churinga, 6ith 6hich the Aranda2 a central Australian people2 represent the body of an ancestor and 6hich then2 -eneration after -eneration2 are sole<nly presented to the indi"idual in 6ho< it is belie"ed the ancestor is repeatedly reincarnated; Accordin- to e"i:$trauss2 the function and specific character of these obDects deri"e fro< the fact that in a society li8e that of the Aranda2 6hich pri"ile-es synchrony to the point 6here it e"en depicts the relationship bet6een past and present in synchronic ter<s2 the churinga ha"e the purpose of co<pensatin- for diachronic i<po"erish<ent by representinthe diachronic past in a tan-ible for<;
()

If our interpretation of the churinga is correct2 Jhe 6ritesl their sacred character deri"es fro< the function of diachronic si-nifica: tion 6hich they alone can -uarantee2 6ithin a syste< 6hich2 beincA 0ificatory2 is entirely laid out in a synchrony 6ithin 6hich e"en F ation is subsu<ed; The churinga are the palpable 6itnesses to the <ythic period0 that alcherin-a 6hich 6ithout the< could still be concei"ed of2 but 6hich could no lon-er be physically e"idenced;A

e"i:$trauss does not detail the <echanis< throu-h 6hich the churinga <ana-es to assu<e this function of si-nifyin- dia: chrony; This is anythin- but a si<ple <echanis<; As a tan-ible presence of the <ythic past2 as Hpalpable proof that the ancestor and his descendant are a sin-le fleshA2 the churinga see<s in fact to be a si-nifier <ore of absolute synchrony than of diachrony; But once the ritual transfor<ation of diachrony into synchrony has ta8en place in the body of the ne6 indi"idual2 3hat 3as the signifier of a'solute synchrony, no3 freed, 'ecomes invested 'y the diachrony 3hich has lost its signifier 1the em'ryo of the ne3 individual), and is turned around into the signifier of a'solute diachrony. Thus2 contrary to 6hat e"i:$trauss <aintains2 there is no contradiction bet6een the fact that the Aranda declare the churinga to be the body of the ancestor and the fact that the ancestor does not lose his o6n body 6hen2 at the <o<ent of conception2 he lea"es the churinga for his ne6 incarnationF Buite si<ply2 a sin-le obDect is here in"ested 6ith t6o opposinsi-nifyin- functions2 accordin- to 6hether the ritual is or is not yet ter<inated; If this is true2 the ritual transfor<ation of diachrony into synchrony necessarily lea"es a diachronic residue >of 6hich the churinga, construed in the broad sense2 is the cipher?2 and the <ost perfect syste< a society has de"ised to abolish diachrony still carries2 ri-ht up to the end2 a production of diachrony in the "ery obDect that has enabled this abolition; As <i-ht be expected2 play too presents us 6ith an analo-ous pheno<enonF play too has its unbud-eable stu<blin- bloc8;
Because the toy2 as a representation of a pure te<poral inter"al2

is undoubtedly a si-nifier of absolute diachrony2 of the prior transfor<ation of a structure into an e"ent; But here too this si-nifier2 once freed2 beco<es unstable2 and is in"ested 6ith a contrary <eanin-F here too, at the end of the game, the toy turns around into its opposite and is presented as the synchronic residue 6hich the -a<e can no lon-er eli<inate; %or if the
('

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN @ A7 AND

transfor<ation of synchrony into diachrony 6ere really co<: plete2 it 6ould lea"e no traces2 and the <iniature 6ould ha"e to correspond 6ith its <odel2 Dust as2 at the ritual=s termination, the churinga 6ould ha"e to "anish2 correspondin- to the body of the indi"idual in 6ho< the ancestor has been reincarnated; This is 6hy toys and ritual obDects de<and analo-ous beha"iour0 once the ritual and the -a<e are o"er2 these2 bein- e<barrassinresidues2 <ust be hidden and put a6ay2 for in a sense they constitute the tan-ible denial of 6hat they ha"e none the less helped to <a8e possible >one can 6onder2 at this point2 6hether the sphere of art in our society has not been <ar8ed out as the lu<ber roo< for -atherin- in these HunstableA si-nifiers2 6hich do not properly belon- either to synchrony or to diachrony2 either to ritual or to play?; Ritual and play thereby fi-ure : and it see<s ine"itably so : as operations actin- on the signifiers of diachrony and synchrony2 transfor<in- the diachronic si-nifiers into synchronic si-nifiers2 and "ice "ersa; E"erythin- occurs2 thou-h2 as if the social syste< contained a safety loc8 intended to -uarantee its binary struc: ture0 6hen all the diachronic si-nifiers ha"e beco<e synchronic si-nifiers2 these in turn beco<e si-nifiers of diachrony2 and thus assure the continuity of the syste<; The sa<e thin- happens the other 6ay round; This potential for in"ersion : 6hich2 under certain conditions2 is inherent in si-nifiers of diachrony and synchrony : also per<its an explanation for cere<onies : for exa<ple2 funeral cere<onies : in 6hich ritual and play ha"e a sin-ular proxi<ity; E"eryone 6ill re<e<ber the li"ely and <eticulous description of the -a<es concludin- @atroclusA funeral in canto SSIII of the Iliad. Achilles has 8ept 6atch all ni-ht beside the pyre on 6hich his friendAs body is bein- burned2 callin- out to his soul and pourin6ine on the fla<es2 or fiercely -i"in- "ent to his sorro6 on the unburied corpse of Hector; No62 suddenly2 -rief -i"es 6ay to the playful pleasure and athletic enthusias< pro"o8ed by the si-ht of the chariot race2 boxin-2 6restlin- and archery contests2 described in ter<s 6ith 6hich 6e are perfectly fa<iliar throu-h our o6n sportin- co<petitions; Rohde has obser"ed 6ith -reat acuity2 and on incontestable philolo-ical bases2 that funeral -a<es 6ere a part of the cult of the dead2 and that this i<plies an attribution of the dead personAs real participation in the
)9

-a<es; The -a<es 6ere played 6ith a Adead <anA2 as card players still play today; It is 6ell 8no6n that Bachofen2 for his part2 too8 thin-s e"en further2 statin-0 Hall -a<es ha"e a <ortuary charac: ter;;; ; The meta is al6ays a to<bstone ;;; and it is to this reli-ious si-nificance that -a<es o6e their presence in the 6orld of to<bs2 6hether on 6all frescoes >as at #orneto? or on sarcopha-us reliefsA; $o it is in to<bs that 6e encounter the <ost ancient exa<ples of that <iniaturi!ation 6hich2 in the precedinpa-es2 has been sho6n to be a cipher of the toy; As Aries 6rites0
Historians of the toy2 and collectors of dolls and toy <iniatures2 ha"e al6ays had considerable difficulty in separatin- the doll2 the childAs toy2 fro< all the other i<a-es and statuettes 6hich the sites of exca"ations yield up in 6ellni-h industrial Buantities and 6hich <ore often than not had a reli-ious si-nificance0 obDects of a household or funerary cult ;;;)

If toys are the si-nifiers of diachrony2 by 6hat ri-ht do they feature in that i<<utable 6orld of synchrony2 the do<ain of the to<bG But that is not all; e"i:$trauss <entions the case of the adoption rites 6hich the %ox Indians celebrate to substitute a li"in- parent for a dead one2 and thereby allo6 the final departure of the deceasedAs soul; These cere<onies are acco<: panied by -a<es of s8ill and chance and sportin- co<petitions bet6een the population2 di"ided for the occasion into t6o -roups2 ?icko and 6okan, representin- the li"in- and the dead; But : and this is the interestin- part : these -a<es ha"e the peculiarity that their outco<e is pre:established0 if the dead person belon-s to the 6okan -roup2 it is the 6okanagi 6ho 6inF if he or she belon-s to the ?icko -roup2 then the ?ickoagi 6in instead; In other 6ords2 6e ha"e before us a -a<e 6hich is treated as a ritual and 6hich2 rulin- out contin-ency2 can certainly no lon-er ser"e to transfor< structures into e"ents; One <i-ht also say that -a<e and rite2 toys and ritual obDects2 si-nifiers of diachrony and si-nifiers of synchrony2 differentiated durin- life2 are in"erted2 and <er-e in death; But let us ta8e a closer loo8 at the <eanin- and function of funeral cere<onies; 3hat 6e find is a syste< of beliefs replicated 6ithout -reat "ariations bet6een di"erse and far flun- cultures2 6hich 6e can therefore treat as a fairly unitary 6hole; Accordinto these beliefs2 deathAs first result is to transfor< the dead person into a phanto< >the atin larva, the Green eidolon and
)&

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN @ A7 AND

phasma, the Indian pitr, etc;? : that is2 into a "a-ue2 threateninbein- 6ho re<ains in the 6orld of the li"in- and returns to the fa<iliar places of the departed one; The purpose of funeral rites : scholars are in a-ree<ent on this : is to -uarantee the transfor<ation of this unsettlin-2 restless bein- into a friendly and po6erful ancestor li"in- in a separate 6orld2 6ith 6ho< relationships are ritually defined; But if 6e try to specify the nature of this "a-ue threateninHlar"aA2 6e see that all the e"idence concurs0 the -host is the Hi<a-eA of the dead <an2 his li8eness2 a 8ind of shado6 or <irror reflection >it is the i<a-e that appears to Achilles to as8 hi< for burial2 and the hero cannot o"erco<e his a<a!e<ent at the perfect rese<blance to @atroclus0 Ahe bore a 6ondrous li8enessA2 he exclai<s?; 3e can then perhaps try to construct this co<plex of apparently disconcertin- beliefs into a coherent syste<; Death transports the deceased fro< the sphere of the li"in- :: 6here diachronic and synchronic si-nifiers coexist : into that of the dead2 6here there is only synchrony; But in this process2 diachrony2 6hich has been e"acuated2 6ill in"est the si-nifier par e cellence of synchrony0 the i<a-e2 6hich death has separated fro< its corporeal support and set free; $o the -host is a si-nifier of synchrony 6hich appears threatenin-ly in the 6orld of the li"in- as an unstable si-nifier par e cellence, 6hich can assu<e the diachronic si-nified of a perpetual 6anderin- 1alcstor, the 6anderer2 is 6hat the Gree8s called the spectre of the unburied?2 and the i<possibility of attainin- a state of fixity; 7et it is this "ery si-nifier 6hich2 throu-h its potential for se<antic in"ersion2 facilitates a brid-e bet6een the 6orld of the li"in- and that of the dead2 ensurin- the passa-e fro< the one to the other 6ithout2 ho6e"er2 confusin- the t6o; In this 6ay2 death >the -ra"est threat that nature brin-s to bear on the binary syste< of hu<an society2 for it is hardest to 8eep open the si-nifyin- opposition bet6een diachrony and synchrony on 6hich the syste< is founded once these see< to coincide? is o"erco<e2 than8s to one of those unstable si-nifiers 6hose function 6e ha"e already learned to "alue in the churinga and the toy; The larva, the unstable si-nifier bet6een synchrony and diachrony2 is trans: for<ed into lare, the <as8 and -ra"en i<a-e of the ancestor 6hich2 as a stable si-nifier2 -uarantees the continuity of the syste<; In the 6ords of a #hinese pro"erb Buoted by Granet0 AThe soul:breath of the dead 6anders0 thus 6e <a8e <as8s to -i"e it a restin- place;A'
)4

It no6 beco<es clear 6hy this reBuires "ery special cere<onies

6hich do not entirely fit into either the sche<a of ritual nor that of play2 but see< to parta8e of both; .nli8e other rites >and -a<es?2 the obDect of funeral rites is not the con"eyin- of stable si-nifiers fro< the sphere of diachrony into that of synchrony2 or "ice "ersa0 their obDect is the transfor<ation of unstable si-: nifiers into stable si-nifiers; Thus -a<es enter into funeral cere<onies2 but in order to be treated as ele<ents of a ritualF and 6hile rites and -a<es allo6 the sur"i"al of unstable si-nifiers2 : an funeral ritual:-a<es cannot lea"e residues0 the -host unstable si-nifier :: <ust beco<e the dead person2 a stable si-nifier of synchrony;&9 But the si-nifyin- opposition bet6een synchrony and dia: chrony2 bet6een the 6orld of the dead and the 6orld of the li"in-2 is shattered not only by death; It is threatened by another critical <o<ent2 no less to be feared0 birth; Thus here too 6e see unstable si-nifiers co<e into play0 Dust as death does not i<<ediately produce ancestors2 but -hosts2 so birth does not i<<ediately produce <en and 6o<en2 but babies2 6hich in all societies ha"e a special differential status; If the -host is the li"in-:dead or the half:dead person2 the baby is a dead:li"in- or a half:ali"e person; It too2 as tan-ible proof of the discontinuity bet6een the 6orld of the li"in- and the 6orld of the dead2 and bet6een diachrony and synchrony2 and as an unstable si-nifier 6hich can2 at any <o<ent2 be transfor<ed into its o6n opposite2 thereby represents both a threat to be neutrali!ed and a <eans of enablin- the passa-e fro< one sphere to the other 6ithout abolishin- its si-nifyin- difference; And Dust as -hosts ha"e a correspondin- function to that of children2 so funeral rites correspond to initiation rites2 in their purpose of transfor<inthese unstable si-nifiers into stable si-nifiers; %ro< a startin- point in #hrist<as fol8lore2 6ith its central i f-ure of %ather #hrist<as2 in Dust a fe6 unfor-ettable pa-es e"i:$trauss reconstructed the <eanin- of initiation ritesFN behind the adult:child opposition2 he discerned a <ore basic opposition bet6een li"in- and dead; In fact2 as 6e ha"e seen;2 children correspond less to the dead than to -hosts; 3ithin the perspecti"e of si-nifyin- function2 adults and dead belon- to the sa<e order2 that of stable si-nifiers and the continuity bet6een diachrony and synchrony; >%ro< this point of "ie62 there is little difference bet6een cold societies2 6hich represent this continuity
)+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN @ A7 AND

as a circle in 6hich the li"in- beco<e dead and these in turn beco<e li"in-2 and hot societies li8e ours2 6hich de"elop this continuity in a rectilinear process; In either case 6hat <atters is the continuity of the syste<;? But children and -hosts2 as unstable si-nifiers2 represent the discontinuity and difference bet6een the t6o 6orlds; The dead person is not the ancestor0 this is the <eanin- of the -host; The ancestor is not the li"in<an0 this is the <eanin- of the child; %or if the dead i<<ediately beca<e ancestors and ancestorsF <<ediately beca<e li"in- <en2 then the 6hole present 6ould in an instant be transfor<ed into past2 and the 6hole past into present2 and this 6ould di<inish that differential <ar-in bet6een synchrony and diachrony on 6hich is based the potential for si-nifyin- relations2 and 6ith it the potential for hu<an society and history; Thus2 since ritual allo6s the persistence in the chu ringa of an irreducible dia: chronic residue2 and play allo6s a synchronic residue in the toy2 so the passa-e bet6een the 6orld of the li"in- and the 6orld of the dead allo6s the persistence of t6o points of discontinuity 6hich are necessary to <aintain the operation of a si-nifyinfunction; $o the passa-e bet6een synchrony and diachrony2 bet6een 6orld of the li"in- and 6orld of the dead2 occurs in a 8ind of HBuantu< leapA2 in 6hich the unstable si-nifiers are the cipher0

3ithin this perspecti"e2 -hosts and children2 belon-in- neither to the si-nifiers of diachrony nor to those of synchrony2 appear as the si-nifiers of the sa<e si-nifyin- opposition bet6een the t6o 6orlds 6hich constitutes the potential for a social syste<; 6hey are, therefore, the signifiers of the signifying function, 6ithout 6hich there 6ould be neither hu<an ti<e nor history;
)=

@layland and the land of -hosts set out a utopian topolo-y of historyland2 6hich has no site except in a si-nifyin- difference bet6een diachrony and synchrony2 bet6een aion and chronos, bet6een li"in- and dead2 bet6een nature ;and culture; $o the social syste< can be pictured as a co<plex <echanis< in 6hich >unstable? si-nifiers of si-nification are counterposed to stable si-nifiers2 but 6here in reality an exchan-e ta8es place bet6een the< to -uarantee the functionin- of the syste<; Thus adults sub<it to beco<in- -hosts so that the -hosts can beco<e dead2 and the dead beco<e children so that the children can beco<e <en and 6o<en; The obDect of funeral rites and initiation rites2 therefore2 is the trans<ission of the si-nifyinfunction2 6hich <ust resist and endure beyond birth and death;&4 Thus no society2 6hether the hottest and <ost pro: -ressi"e or the coldest and <ost conser"ati"e2 can alto-ether do 6ithout unstable si-nifiers and2 in so far as they represent an ele<ent of disturbance and threat2 <ust ta8e care that the si-nifyin- exchan-e is not interrupted2 so that phanto<s can beco<e dead and babies li"in- <en; $o if 6e no6 loo8 at our o6n culture2 6hich is con"inced that it has freed itself fro< these proble<s and rationally resol"ed the trans<ission of si-nifiers fro< the past to the present2 it 6ill not ta8e us lon- to reco-ni!e Hlar"eA in the 7achle'en and in those sur"i"ors of the si-nifiers of the past2 stripped of their ori-inal <eanin-2 to 6hich the 3arbur-hian school has dedicated such fertile and exe<plary studies; The fro!en i<a-es of the pa-an -ods and the fearso<e fi-ures of the astrolo-ical decans and paranatellons2 6hose lar"al and lar"ate sur"i"al 6e can trace 6ithout a brea8 across the centuries2 li8e the rest of the innu<erable si-nifiers of the past2 shorn of their <eanin-2 appear as oppressi"e and troublin- sy<bolsF these are the precise eBui"alent of the larve, these are the -hosts 6hich cultures 8eep ali"e2 in so far as they exorci!e the< as threatenin- phanto<s2 instead of playin- 6ith the<; As for the other class of unstable si-nifiers2 a loo8 at the function our society reser"es for the youn- is no less instructi"e; %or it is certainly not an index of health 6hen a culture is so obsessed 6ith the si-nifiers of its o6n past that it prefers to exorci!e the< and 8eep the< ali"e indefinitely as Hphanto<sA rather than bury the<2 and 6hen it is so afraid of the unstable si-nifiers of the present that it cannot see the< as anythin- other
)5

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

IN @ A7 AND (; /; /erenyi2 /ie #eligion der 4riechen and #omer, Munich:Ourich &'1+2 p;+=;
);

than the bearers of disorder and sub"ersion; This exasperation and this hardenin- of the si-nifyin- function of -hosts and children in our culture is an uneBui"ocal si-n that the binary syste< has beco<e bloc8ed and can no lon-er -uarantee the exchan-e of si-nifiers on 6hich its functionin- is founded; Hence those adults 6ho use the -hosts of the past only as bo-eys to pre"ent their o6n children fro< beco<in- adults2 and use their o6n children only as an alibi for their o6n incapacity to bury the -hosts of the past2 need to re<e<ber that the basic rule of the play of history is that the si-nifiers of continuity accept an exchan-e 6ith those of discontinuity2 and the trans<ission of the si-nifyin- function is <ore i<portant than the si-nifiers the<: sel"es; True historical continuity cannot pretend to discard the si-nifiers of discontinuity by confinin- the< to a @layland or a <useu< for -hosts >6hich no6 often coincide in a sin-le place0 the uni"ersity?2 but by Hplayin-A 6ith the<2 accepts the< so as to restore the< to the past and trans<it the< to the future; Other6ise2 in the face of adults 6ho literally play dead and prefer to entrust their o6n phanto<s to children and children to these phanto<s2 the shades of the past 6ill co<e bac8 to life to de"our the children2 or the children 6ill destroy the si-nifiers of the past : 6hich2 in ter<s of the si-nifyin- function2 history2 a<ounts to the sa<e thin-; This is the "ery opposite of the <yth of ori-in narrated by one of the @ueblo IndiansA initiation rites0 6hen the shades of the dead ca<e bac8 to the 6orld of the li"into carry off the children2 the adults offered to i<personate the< e"ery year in a playful <asBuerade2 so that the children could li"e and one day ta8e their place;

'; & Aries2 !enturies of !hildhood, Har<onds6orth &'(+2 p. CC. &9; Granet2 /anses et ,egendes, p. IIF. &;&; The case of the Trobriand islanders >studied by Malino6s8i in HBaloinaF the $pirits of the Dead in the Trobriand islandsA2 in +ournal of the #oyal 5nthropological Institute of 4reat (ritain and Ireland, "ol; =12 &'&1? has a particular structure that fully confir<s this interpretation; 3hat is usually presented as a sin-le unstable si-nifier here appears fro< the be-innin- di"ided into t6o distinct si-nifiers0 the Balo<a >the i<a-e2 born into the land of the dead? and the /osi >the shade2 6hich 6anders for so<e ti<e in the nei-hbourhood of the "illa-e before disappearin- 6ithout any need of special hu<an inter"ention?; In this case2 too2 the si-nifyinopposition bet6een diachrony and synchrony is thus -uaranteed at the <o<ent of deathF but since the unstable si-nifier is already bro8en into t6o separate co<ponents2 the funeral cere<onies2 as Malino6s8i noted2 do not appear to concern the spirit of the dead one in any 6ay0 HThey are not perfor<ed2 either to send a <essa-e of lo"e and re-ret to the 'aloma >spirit?2 or to deter hi< fro< returnin-F they do not influence his 6elfare2 nor do they affect his relation to the sur"i"ors;A &4; #; e"i:$trauss2 H e @ere Noel supplicieA2 es 6emps ;odernes, no; ((2 &'54; &+; An analysis of an initiation rite 6hich has al6ays -reatly fascinated ethno-raphers2 the katcina of the @ueblo Indians2 is particularly instructi"e in this context; In the course of this initiation2 the adults re"eal no teachinor syste< of truths to the initiands2 only that the katcina, the supernatural bein-s 6ho< they ha"e seen dance in the "illa-e in the course of annual cere<onies2 and 6ho ha"e so often fri-htened the< 6ith their yucca 6hips2 are the adults the<sel"es masked as katcina. This re"elation2 ho6e"er2 co<<its the neophytes to 8eepin- the secret and2 in their turn2 i<personat: in- the katcina. The content of the ritual2 the HsecretA 6hich is trans<itted is2 in other 6ords2 that there is nothin- to trans<it e cept transmission itself: the si-nifyin- function in itself;

e"i:$trauss2 ,a "ensee sauvage, p. +49;

NOTE$
&; #; #ollodi2 6he 5dventures of "inocchio, transK; M;A; Murray2 ondon0 T; %isher .n6in &)'4;
4; M; Granet2 /anses et ,egendes de la !hine ancienne, @aris &'5'2 "ol; &2

p; +4&; +; #; e"i:$trauss2 HMythe et oubliA2 in ,angue, discours, societd, for E<ile Ben"eniste2 @aris &'(52 p; 4''; =; E; Ben"eniste2 H e Deu et le sacreA2 /eucalion, no; 42 &'=(2 p; &15;

5; ibid;

C. #; e"i:$trauss2 ,a "ensee sauvage, @aris0 @lon &'142 pp; ==:(; )1 )(

TIME AND HI$TOR7


#ritiBue of the Instant and the #ontinuu<

To $ictor 4oldschmidt and Henri2!harles "uech

I
E"ery conception of history is in"ariably acco<panied by a certain experience of ti<e 6hich is i<plicit in it2 conditions it2 and thereby has to be elucidated; $i<ilarly2 e"ery culture is first and fore<ost a particular experience of ti<e2 and no ne6 culture is possible 6ithout an alteration in this experience; The ori-inal tas8 of a -enuine re"olution2 therefore2 is ne"er <erely to Hchan-e the 6orldA2 but also : and abo"e all : to Hchan-e ti<eA; Modern political thou-ht has concentrated its attention on history2 and has not elaborated a correspondin- concept of ti<e; E"en historical <aterialis< has until no6 ne-lected to elaborate a concept of ti<e that co<pares 6ith its concept of history; Because of this o<ission it has been un6ittin-ly co<pelled to ha"e recourse to a concept of ti<e do<inant in 3estern culture for centuries2 and so to harbour2 side by side2 a re"olutionary concept of history and a traditional experience of ti<e; The "ul-ar representation of ti<e as a precise and ho<o-eneous continuu< has thus diluted the Marxist concept of history0 it has beco<e the hidden breach throu-h 6hich ideolo-y has crept into the citadel of historical <aterialis<; BenDa<in had already 6arned of this dan-er in his HTheses on the @hilosophy of HistoryA2 3e no6 need to elucidate the concept of ti<e i<plicit in the Marxist conception of history; II $ince the hu<an <ind has the experience of ti<e but not its representation2 it necessarily pictures ti<e by <eans of spatial i<a-es; The Graeco:Ro<an concept of ti<e is basically circular and continuous; @uech 6rites0
Do<inated by a notion of intelli-ibility 6hich assi<ilates the full2
'&

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

TIME AND HI$TOR7

authentic bein- to 6hat is in hi< and cornespc d s to hi<2 to the eternal and the i<<utable2 the Gree8 re-ards <o"e<ent and beco<in- as inferior de-rees of reality2 6here correspondence is at best only understood as per<anence and perpetuity2 in other 6ords as rcta<; #ircular <o"e<ent2 6hich -uarantees the unchan-ed preser"ation of thin-s throu-h their repetition and continual return2 is the <ost direct and <ost perfect expression >and therefore the closest0 to the di"ine? of the !enith of the hierarchy0 absolute i<<obility;

the thin-s that are closest to the be-innin- co<e before2 6hat then pre"ents us fro< bein- closer to the be-innin- than those 6ho li"ed at the ti<e of the TroDan 3arG ;;; If the seBuence of e"ents for<s a circle2 since the circle has indeed neither be-innin- nor end2 6e cannot2 by bein- closer to the be-innin-2 co<e before the< any <ore than they can be said to co<e before us;

In @latoAs 6imaeus ti<e is <easured by the cyclical re"olution of the celestial spheres and defined as a <o"in- i<a-e of eternity0 HThe creator of the 6orld constructed a <o"in- i<a-e of eternity2 and2 in orderin- the hea"ens2 fro< eternity one and unshiftin- he <ade this i<a-e 6hich e"er <o"es accordin- to the la6s of nu<ber and 6hich 6e call ti<e;A Aristotle confir<s the circular nature of ti<e in these ter<s0
; ; and so ti<e is re-arded as the rotation of the sphere2 inas<uch as all other orders of <otion are <easured 'y it, and ti<e itself is standardi!ed by reference to it; And this is the reason of our habitual 6ay of spea8in-F for 6e say that hu<an affairs and those of all other thin-s that ha"e natural <o"e<ent ;;; see< to be in a 6ay circular2 because all these thin-s co<e to pass in ti<e and ha"e their be-innin- and end as it 6ere HperiodicallyAF for ti<e itself is concei"ed as co<in- roundF and this a-ain because ti<e and such a standard rotation <utually deter<ine each other; Hence2 to call the happenin-s of a thin- a circle is sayin- that there is a sort of circle
of ti<e ;;; t

But the funda<ental character of the Gree8 experience of ti<e : 6hich2 throu-h AristotleAs @hysics2 has for t6o <illennia deter<ined the 3estern representation of ti<e : is its bein- a precise2 infinite2 Buantified continuu<; Aristotle thus defines ti<e as HBuantity of <o"e<ent accordin- to the before and the afterA2 and its continuity is assured by its di"ision into discrete instants %to nyn, the no6K2 analo-ous to the -eo<etric point %stigme&. The instant in itself is nothin- <ore than the continuity of ti<e %syndcheia chrdnou&, a pure li<it 6hich both Doins and di"ides past and future; As such2 it is al6ays elusi"e2 and Aristotle expresses its paradoxically nullified character in the state<ent that in di"idin- ti<e infinitely2 the no6 is al6ays HotherAF yet in unitin- past and future and ensurin- continuity2 it is al6ays the sa<eF and in this is the basis of the radical HothernessA of ti<e2 and of its Hdestructi"eA character0
And besides2 since the Hno6A is the end and the be-innin- of ti<e2 but not of the sa<e ti<e2 but the end of ti<e past and the be-innin- of ti<e to co<e2 it <ust present a relation analo-ous to the 8ind of identity bet6een the con"exity and the conca"ity of the sa<e circu<ference2 6hich necessitates a difference bet6een that 6ith respect to 6hich it bears the other;A

The first outco<e of this conception is that ti<e2 beinessentially circular2 has no direction; $trictly spea8in-2 it has no be-innin-2 no <iddle and no end : or rather2 it has the< only in so far as its circular <otion returns unceasin-ly bac8 on itself; A sin-ular passa-e in AristotleAs "ro'lemata explains that fro< this point of "ie6 it is i<possible to say 6hether 6e are before or after the TroDan 3ar0
Do those 6ho li"ed at the ti<e of the TroDan 3ar co<e before us2 and before the< those 6ho li"ed in an e"en <ore ancient ti<e2 and so on to infinity2 those <en <ost re<ote in the past co<in- al6ays before the restG Or else2 if it is true that the && GT"e has a be-innin-2 a <iddle and an endF that 6hat in a-ein- reaches its end to find itself therefore bac8 at the be-innin-F if it is true2 on the other hand2 that '4

3estern <anAs incapacity to <aster ti<e2 and his conseBuent obsession 6ith -ainin- it and passin- it2 ha"e their ori-ins in this Gree8 concept of ti<e as a Buantified and infinite continuum of
precise fleetin- instants;

A culture 6ith such a representation of ti<e could ha"e no real experience of historicity; To state that AntiBuity had no experi: ence of li"ed ti<e is2 6ithout doubt2 a si<plification2 but there is eBually no doubt that the locus in 6hich the Gree8 philoso: phers deal 6ith the Buestion of ti<e is al6ays "hysics. Ti<e is so<ethin- obDecti"e and natural2 6hich en"elops thin-s that are AinsideA it as if in a sheath %periechon&: as each thin- inhabits a place2 so it inhabits ti<e; The be-innin- of the <odern concept
'+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7 TIME AND HI$TOR7

of history has often been traced bac8 to the 6ords 6ith 6hich Herodotus opens his Histories: HHerodotus of Halicarnassus here puts forth the fruit of his researches2 so that ti<e <ay not erase <enAs underta8in-s ;;;A; It is the destructi"e character of ti<e 6hich the Histories 6ish to co<bat2 thereby confir<in- the essentially ahistorical nature of the ancient concept of ti<e; i8e the 6ord indicatin- the act of 8no6led-e %eidenai&, so too the 6ord historic deri"es fro< the root id2, 6hich <eans to see; Histor is in ori-in the eye6itness2 the one 6ho has seen; Here too the Gree8 supre<acy of "ision is confir<ed; The deter<ination of authenticity as Hpresent before the loo8A rules out an experi: ence of history as 6hat is already there 6ithout e"er appearinbefore our eyes as such; III The antithesis of this in <any respects is the #hristian experience of ti<e; 3hile the classical representation of ti<e is a circle2 the i<a-e -uidin- the #hristian conceptuali!ation of it is a strai-ht line; @uech 6rites0
In contrast 6ith the Hellenic 6orld2 for the #hristian the 6orld is created 6ithin ti<e and <ust end 6ithin ti<e; At one end2 the account of Genesis2 at the other2 the eschatolo-ical perspecti"e of the Apocalypse; And the #reation2 the ast Dud-e<ent2 and the inter: <ediary period bet6een these t6o e"ents are uniBue; This uniBuely fashioned uni"erse 6hich be-an2 6hich endures and 6hich 6ill end 6ithin ti<e2 is a finite 6orld enclosed by the t6o ed-es of its history; Its duration co<prises neither the eternal nor the infinite2 and the e"ents 6hich unfold 6ithin it 6ill ne"er be repeated;

the pro-ressi"e reali!ation of rede<ption2 6hose foundation is in God; And in this2 e"ery e"ent is uniBue and irreplaceable; Despite its apparent scorn for HepochA2 it is #hristianity 6hich has laid the foundation for an experience of historicity2 rather than the ancient 6orld2 attenti"e thou-h it 6as to e"ents; Indeed2 #hristianity resolutely separates ti<e fro< the natural <o"e: <ent of the stars to <a8e it an essentially hu<an2 interior pheno<enon; H$upposin- the li-hts of hea"en 6ere to cease2A 6rites $aint Au-ustine2 in sin-ularly <odern:soundin- phraseol: o-y2
and the potterAs 6heel <o"ed on2 6ould there not be ti<e 'y 6hich 6e could <easure its rotations and say that these 6ere at eBual inter"als2 or so<e slo6er2 so<e Buic8er2 so<e ta8in- lon-er2 so<e shorterG et no one tell <e that the <o"e<ent of the hea"enly bodies is ti<e;;; ; I see ti<e as in so<e 6ay extended; But do I see itG Or do I only see< to see itG Thou 6ilt sho6 <e2 9 i-ht2 9 Truth;+

None the less2 ti<e thus interiori!ed re<ains the continuous succession of precise instants of Gree8 thou-ht; The 6hole of the ele"enth boo8 of Au-ustineAs !onfessions, 6ith its an-uished and unresol"ed interro-ation of fleetin- ti<e2 sho6s that con: tinuous2 Buantified ti<e has not been abolished2 si<ply dis: placed fro< the paths of the stars to interior duration; Indeed2 it is precisely his preser"ation of the Aristotelian concept of the precise instant 6hich pre"ents Au-ustine fro< reachin- a conclusion about the Buestion of ti<e0 is no <ore and the future is not yetG On the other hand2 if the present
6ere al6ays present and ne"er flo6ed a6ay into the past2 it 6ould not be ti<e at all2 but eternity; But if the present is only ti<e2 because it flo6s a6ay into the past2 ho6 can 6e say that it isG %or it is2 only because it 6ill cease to be ;;; If 6e concei"e of so<e point of ti<e 6hich cannot be di"ided e"en into the <inutest parts of <o<ents2 that is the only point that can be called present0 and that point flees at such li-htnin- speed fro< bein- future to bein- past2 that it has no extent of duration at all; %or if it 6ere so extended2 it 6ould be di"isible into past and future0 the present has no len-th;= But the t6o ti<es2 past and future2 ho6 can they be2 since the past

Moreo"er2 in contrast 6ith the directionless ti<e of the classical 6orld2 this ti<e has a direction and a purpose0 it de"elops irre"ersibly fro< the #reation to the end2 and has a central point of reference in the incarnation of #hrist2 6hich shapes its de"elop<ent as a pro-ression fro< the initial fall to the final rede<ption; Thus $aint Au-ustine can oppose the falsi circuli of the Gree8 philosophers 6ith the via recta of #hrist2 and the eternal repetition of pa-anis<2 6here nothin- is ne62 6ith #hristian no"itas2 in 6hich e"erythin- al6ays occurs only once; The history of hu<anity thus appears as a history of sal"ation2
'=

The experience of a fuller2 <ore ori-inal and tan-ible ti<e2 discernible in pri<iti"e #hristianity2 is thereby o"erlaid by the
'$

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

TIME AND HI$TOR7

<athe<atical ti<e of classical AntiBuity; 3ith it there ine"itably returns the ancient circular representation of Gree8 <etaphysics2 assi<ilated first throu-h Neoplatoni!in- patristics2 and later throu-h scholastic theolo-y; Eternity2 the re-i<e of di"inity2 6ith its static circle2 tends to ne-ate the hu<an experience of ti<e; The discrete2 fleetin- instant beco<es the point 6here ti<e intercepts the 6heel of eternity; HTo achie"e an i<a-e of the relation bet6een eternity and ti<e2A 6e read in Guillau<e dAAu"er-neAs de Aniverso:
try to i<a-ine eternity as an i<<ense 6heel2 and 6ithin this 6heel the 6heel of ti<e2 so that the first touches the second at a sin-le point; %or you 8no6 that if a circle or a sphere touches another circle or another sphere2 6hether outside or inside2 this contact can ta8e place only at a sin-le point; $ince eternity is entirely <otionless and si<ultaneous2 as I ha"e said2 6hene"er the 6heel of ti<e touches the 6heel of eternity the contact occurs only at a re-ular point in its rotationF this is 6hy ti<e is not si<ultaneous; 5

si<ple succession of no3 in ter<s of before and after2 and the history of sal"ation has <ean6hile beco<e pure chronolo-y2 a se<blance of <eanin- can be sa"ed only by introducin- the idea :: albeit one lac8in- any rational foundation : of a continuous2 infinite pro-ress; .nder the influence of the natural sciences2 Ade"elopF"TeorA and Hpro-ressA2 6hich <erely translate the idea of a chronolo-ically orientated process2 beco<e the -uidin- cate: -ories of historical 8no6led-e; $uch a concept of ti<e and history necessarily expropriates <an fro< the hu<an di<ension and i<pedes access to authentic historicity; As Dilthey and #ount 7orc8 had obser"ed >AThat school 6as by no <eans a
historical one2 but an antiBuarian one2 construin- thin-s aes:

I* The <odern concept of ti<e is a seculari!ation of rectilinear2 irre"ersible #hristian ti<e2 albeit sundered fro< any notion of end and e<ptied of any other <eanin- but that of a structured process in ter<s of before and after; This representation of ti<e as ho<o-eneous2 rectilinear and e<pty deri"es fro< the experi: ence of <anufacturin- 6or8 and is sanctioned by <odern <echanics2 6hich establishes the pri<acy of unifor< rectilinear <otion o"er circular <otion; The experience of dead ti<e abstracted fro< experience2 6hich characteri!es life in <odern cities and factories2 see<s to -i"e credence to the idea that the precise fleetin- instant is the only hu<an ti<e; Before and after2 notions 6hich 6ere "a-ue and e<pty for AntiBuity R;; and 6hich2 for #hristianity2 had <eanin- only in ter<s of the end of ti<e : no6 beco<e <eanin- in the<sel"es and for the<sel"es2 and this <eanin- is presented as truly historical; As Niet!sche had already -rasped2 6ith Hart<annAs Hprocess of the 6orldA >Aonly process can lead to rede<ptionA?2 the idea -o"ernin- the nineteenth:century concept of history is that of HprocessA; Only process as a 6hole has <eanin-2 ne"er the precise fleetin- no3- but since this process is really no <ore than a
'1

thetically2 6hile the -reat do<inatin- acti"ity 6as one of <echanical constructionA?2 behind the apparent triu<ph of historicis< in the nineteenth century is hidden a radical ne-ation of history2 in the na<e of an ideal of 8no6led-e <odelled on the natural sciences; This lea"es a<ple scope for the e"i:$traussian critiBue2 6hich points to the chronolo-ical and discontinuous nature of historio: -raphical codification2 and denounces fraudulent pretensions to any obDecti"e historical continuity independent of the code >6ith the result that history ulti<ately assu<es the role of a Athorou-h:
-oin- <ythA?; K e"i:$trauss reDects the eBuation of history and

hu<anity2 6hich is thrust upon us 6ith the undeclared ai< of H<a8in- history the last refu-e of transcendental hu<anis<A; But it is not a Buestion of abandonin- historyF rather2 of achie"in- a <ore authentic concept of historicity; * He-el thin8s of ti<e in ter<s of the Aristotelian <odel of the precise instant; A-ainst the Aristotelian nyn, he sets the no3 in correspondenceF and2 as Aristotle concei"ed the nyn as sti-<e2 so he concei"es the no3 as a point; This no62 6hich His nothinother than the passa-e of its bein- into nothin-ness2 and fro< nothin-ness into its bein-A2 is eternity as Htrue presentA; The conDunction of spatial representations and te<poral experience 6hich do<inates the 3estern concept of ti<e is de"eloped in He-el as a conception of ti<e as ne-ation and dialectical do<inion of space; 3hile the spatial point is a si<ple indifferent
'(

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

TIME AND HI$TOR7

ne-ati"ity2 the te<poral point : that is2 the instant :: is the


ne-ation of this undifferentiated ne-ation2 the o"erco<in- of the Hparalysed i<<obilityA of space in beco<in-; It is therefore2 in this sense2 ne-ation of ne-ation; Definin- ti<e in this 6ay as a ne-ation of ne-ation2 He-el cannot a"oid ta8in- to its extre<e conclusion the nullification of experience by ti<e i<plicit in its deter<ination as a continuous succession of precise instants; HTi<eA2 he 6rites in a passa-e fro< the Encyclopaedia 6hich still resonates 6ith an :: albeit subdued and consciously assu<ed :: Au-ustinian anxiety in the face of ti<eAs fleetin- essence2 His the thin- existin- 6hich is not 6hen it is2 and is 6hen it is not0 a half:-li<psed beco<in-;A As such2 this ne-ati"e bein- 6hich His 6hat is not and is not 6hat isA is for<ally ho<olo-ous to <an; Indeed2 perhaps it is because He-el thin8s of ti<e in ter<s of the <etaphysical <odel of the precise instant that it can for< such a part in his syste< of that Hpo6er of the ne-ati"eA2 6hich he sees at 6or8 in the hu<an spirit and <a8es the central <otor of the dialectic; 3hat the He-elian syste< expresses in the for<al correspondence of ti<e and the hu<an spirit2 both of these construed as ne-ation of ne-ation2 is the as yet unexplored lin8 bet6een the annulled experience of ti<e for 3estern <an and the ne-atin- po6er of his culture; Only a culture 6ith such an experience of ti<e could render the essence of the hu<an spirit as ne-ation2 and the true sense of the He-elian dialectic cannot be understood unless it is related to the concept of ti<e to 6hich it is inte-ral; %or the dialectic is abo"e all 6hat <a8es possible the contain<ent and unification %dia2legesthai& of the continuu< of
ne-ati"e fleetin- instants;

i8e ti<e2 6hose essence is pure ne-ation2 history can ne"er be -rasped in the instant2 but only as total social process; It thereby re<ains at one re<o"e fro< the li"ed experience of the sin-le indi"idual2 6hose ideal is happiness; HIn considerin- history one can also adopt the "ie6point of happiness2 but history is not the site of happiness;A Hence the e<er-ence2 in the He-elian philoso: phy of history2 of the so<bre fi-ure of H-reat historical indi"id: ualityA in 6hich is incarnated Hthe soul of the 6orldA; HGreat <enA are <erely instru<ental in the for6ard <arch of the uni"ersal $pirit; i8e indi"iduals2 Hthey do not 8no6 6hat is co<<only held as happinessA; HOnce they ha"e reached their -oal2 they sali8e e<pty sac8s;A The real subDect of history is the $tate; *I MarxAs conception of history has an alto-ether different context; %or hi< history is not so<ethin- into 6hich <an falls, so<e: thin- that <erely expresses the bein-:in:ti<e of the hu<an <ind2 it is <anAs ori-inal di<ension as 4attungs3esen >species:bein-?2 as bein- capable of -eneration : that is to say2 capable of producin- hi<self fro< the start not <erely as an indi"idual2 nor as an abstract -enerali!ation2 but as a uni"ersal indi"idual; History2 therefore2 is deter<ined not2 as it is in He-el and the historicis< 6hich deri"es fro< hi<2 by an experience of linear ti<e as ne-ation of ne-ation2 but 'y pra is, concrete acti"ity as essence and ori-in %4attung& of <an; "ra is, in 6hich <an posits hi<self as ori-in and nature of <an2 is at once Hthe first historical actA2 the foundin- act of history2 to be understood as the <eans by 6hich the hu<an essence beco<es <anAs nature and nature beco<es <an; History is no lon-er2 as in He-el2 <anAs destiny of alienation and his necessary fall 6ithin the ne-ati"e ti<e 6hich he inhabits in an infinite process2 but rather his nature- in other 6ords2 <anAs ori-inal belon-in- to hi<self as 4attungs3esen, fro< 6hich alienation has te<porarily re<o"ed hi<; ;an is not a historical 'eing 'ecause he falls into time, 'ut precisely the opposite- it is only 'ecause he is a historical 'eing that he can fall into time, ternporalizing himself. Marx did not elaborate a theory of ti<e adeBuate to his idea of history2 but the latter clearly cannot be reconciled 6ith the Aristotelian and He-elian concept of ti<e as a continuous and
I ''

Ne"ertheless2 in He-el the ori-in of ti<e and the sense of its for<al correspondence 6ith the spirit are not interro-ated as such; Ti<e appears si<ply as the necessity and the destiny of the unfulfilled spirit; The spirit <ust fall into ti<e; HIt is in 8eepin6ith the concept of the spiritA2 he 6rites in #eason in History, Hthat the e"olution of history be produced in ti<e;A But since ti<e2 as 6e ha"e seen2 His the thin- existin- 6hich is not 6hen it is2 and is 6hen it is notA2 the Absolute can be true only as an Houtco<eAF and history2 6hich is Hthe spirit alienated in ti<eA2 is essentially $tufen-an-2 a -radual process; As the alienation of alienation2 it is the Hcal"aryA and the Hdisco"eryA of the absolute spirit2 the Hfoa<A 6hich rises forth for hi< fro< the HchaliceA of his o6n infinitude;A
')

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

TIME AND HI$TOR7

infinite succession of precise instants; $o lon- as this nullified experience of ti<e re<ains our hori!on2 it is not possible to attain authentic history2 for truth 6ill al6ays "ie 6ith the process as a 6hole2 and <an 6ill ne"er be able concretely2 practically2 to appropriate his o6n history; The funda<ental contradiction of <odern <an is precisely that he does not yet ha"e an experience of ti<e adeBuate to his idea of history2 and is therefore painfully split bet6een his bein-:in:ti<e as an elusi"e flo6 of instants and his bein-:in:history2 understood as the ori-inal di<ension of <an; The t6ofold nature of e"ery <odern concept of history2 as res gestae and as historia rerron gestarum, as diachronic reality and as synchronic structure 6hich can ne"er coincide in ti<e2 expresses this i<possibility0 the inability of <an2 6ho is lost in ti<e2 to ta8e possession of his o6n historical nature; *II 3hether it is concei"ed as linear or circular2 in 3estern thou-ht ti<e in"ariably has the point as its do<inatin- feature; i"ed
ti<e is represented throu-h a <etaphysical:-eo<etric concept

>the discrete point or instant?2 and it is then ta8en as if this concept 6ere itself the real ti<e of experience; *ico had obser"ed that the concept of the -eo<etric point is a <etaphysical concept2 6hich furnished the malignum aditum, the He"il open: in-A throu-h 6hich <etaphysics had in"aded physics; *icoAs 6ords on the -eo<etric point could also be applied to the instant as a HpointA in ti<e; This is the openin- throu-h 6hich the eternity of <etaphysics insinuates itself into the hu<an experi: ence of ti<e2 and irreparably splits it; Any atte<pt to concei"e of ti<e differently <ust ine"itably co<e into conflict 6ith this concept2 and a critiBue of the instant is the lo-ical condition for a ne6 experience of ti<e; The ele<ents for a different concept of ti<e lie scattered a<on- the folds and shado6s of the 3estern cultural tradition; 3e need only to elucidate these2 so that they <ay e<er-e as the bearers of a <essa-e 6hich is <eant for us and 6hich it is our tas8 to "erify; It is in Gnosticis<2 that failed reli-ion of the 3est2 that there appears an experience of ti<e in radical opposition to both the Gree8 and the #hristian "ersions; In opposition to the Gree8 circle of experience and the strai-ht line of #hristianity2 it
&99

posits a concept 6hose spatial <odel can be represented by a bro8en line; In this 6ay it stri8es directly at 6hat re<ains unaltered in classical AntiBuity and #hristianity ali8e0 duration2 precise and continuous ti<e; The cos<ic ti<e of Gree8 experi: ence is denied by Gnosticis< in the na<e of the 6orldAs absolute estran-e<ent fro< a -od >God is the allUtrios2 the supre<e other?2 6hose pro"idential 6or8 cannot be a <atter of preser": in- cos<ic la6s2 but of brea8in- the<; The i<petus to6ards rede<ption of #hristian linear ti<e is ne-ated because2 for the Gnostic2 the Resurrection is not so<ethin- to be a6aited in ti<e2 to occur in so<e <ore or less re<ote futureF it has already ta8en place; The ti<e of Gnosticis<2 therefore2 is an incoherent and unho<o-eneous ti<e2 6hose truth is in the <o<ent of abrupt interruption2 6hen <an2 in a sudden act of consciousness2 ta8es possession of his o6n condition of bein- resurrected >Astati< resurrectionis co<posA?; In 8eepin- 6ith this experience of interrupted ti<e2 the Gnostic attitude is resolutely re"olutionary0 it refuses the past 6hile "aluin- in it2 throu-h an exe<plary sense of the present2 precisely 6hat 6as conde<ned as ne-ati"e >#ain2 Esau2 the inhabitants of $odo<?2 and expectin- nothin- fro< the future; In $toicis<2 too2 the t6ili-ht of AntiBuity see<s to o"erco<e its o6n concept of ti<e; This appears as a refusal of the astrono<ical ti<e of the 6imaeus, i<a-e of eternity2 and of the Aristotelian notion of the <athe<atical instant; %or the $toics2 ho<o-eneous2 infinite2 Buantified ti<e2 di"idin- the present into discrete instants2 is unreal ti<e2 6hich exe<plifies experience as 6aitin- and deferral; $ubser"ience to this elusi"e ti<e constitutes a funda<ental sic8ness2 6hich2 6ith its infinite postpone<ent2 hinders hu<an existence fro< ta8in- possession of itself as so<ethin- full and sin-ular >A<axi<u< "itae "itiu< est2 Buod i<perfecta se<per est2 Buod ali Buid in illa differturA?; A-ainst this2 the $toic posits the liberatin- experience of ti<e as so<ethin- neither obDecti"e nor re<o"ed fro< our control2 but sprin-in- fro< the actions and decisions of <an; Its <odel is the cairns, the abrupt and sudden conDunction 6here decision -rasps opportunity and life is fulfilled in the <o<ent; Infinite2 Buanti: i f ed ti<e is thus at once deli<ited and <ade present0 6ithin itself the cairns distils different ti<es >Ao<niu< te<poru< in unu< collatioA? and 6ithin it the sa-e is <aster of hi<self and at his
&9&

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

TIME AND HI$TOR7

ease2 li8e a -od in eternity; This is Hthe final handA dealt e"ery ti<e to life2 6hich radically re<o"es <an fro< ser"itude to Buantified
ti<e >ABui cotidie "itae suae su<<a< <anu< i<posuit2 non

indi-et te<poreA?;

*III
It is certainly no accident that e"ery ti<e <odern thou-ht has co<e to reconceptuali!e ti<e2 it has ine"itably had to be-in 6ith a critiBue of continuous2 Buantified ti<e; $uch a critiBue underlies both BenDa<inAs HTheses on the @hilosophy of HistoryA
and Heide--erAs inco<plete analysis of te<porality in (eing and

6ime. This coincidence in t6o thin8ers so far apart is a si-n that the concept of ti<e 6hich has do<inated 3estern culture for nearly t6o thousand years is on the 6ane; There <o"es in BenDa<in that sa<e Ee6ish <essianic intuition 6hich had led /af8a to 6rite that Hthe Day of Dud-e<ent is the nor<al condition of historyA and to replace the idea of history de"elopin- alon- infinite linear ti<e 6ith the paradoxical i<a-e of a Astate of historyA2 6hose 8ey e"ent is al6ays unfoldin- and 6hose -oal is not in the distant future2 but already present; Ta8in- up these the<es2 BenDa<in see8s a concept of history correspondin- to the state<ent that Athe state of e<er-ency is the ruleA; Instead of the nullified present of the <etaphysical tradi: tion2 BenDa<in posits Aa present 6hich is not a transition2 but in 6hich ti<e stands still and has co<e to a stopA; Instead of the social de<ocratic and historicist notion of the historical pro-ress of hu<an8ind2 6hich Acannot be sundered fro< the concept of its pro-ression throu-h a ho<o-eneous2 e<pty ti<eA2 he puts for6ard the re"olutionariesA Aa6areness that they are about to <a8e the continuu< of history explodeA; A-ainst the e<pty2 Buantified instant2 he sets a Ati<e of the no6A2 +etzt28eit, construed as a <essianic cessation of happenin-2 6hich Aco<: prises the entire history of <an8ind in an enor<ous abrid-e: <entA; It is in the na<e of this Afull ti<eA2 6hich is Athe true site of historical constructionA2 that BenDa<in2 faced 6ith the Na!i: $o"iet pact2 pursues his lucid critiBue of the causes behind the European eftAs disastrous failure after the %irst 3orld 3ar; The <essianic ti<e of Eudais<2 in 6hich e"ery second 6as the Astrait -ate throu-h 6hich the Messiah <i-ht enterA2 thus beco<es the
&94

<odel for a conception of history Athat a"oids any co<plicity 6ith the thin8in- to 6hich politicians continue to adhereA; But it is in Heide--erAs thou-ht that the conception of precise2 continuous ti<e is subDected to a radical critiBue 6ithin the ter<s of repetition:destruction 6hich in"ade 3estern <etaphys: ics as a 6hole; %ro< the start2 Heide--erAs research 6as directed to6ards a sitin- of history that 6ould o"erco<e "ul-ar histori: cis<2 and in 6hich2 H6ith the thesis that H/asein is historicalN2 one has in "ie6 not Dust the Ontical %act that in <an 6e are presented 6ith a <ore or less i<portant Nato< in the 6or8in-s of 6orld history ;;;N A' Thus2 at the "ery point 6hen they 6ere seen to be inadeBuate2 he too8 up DiltheyAs efforts to6ards a historical foundation for the hu<an sciences independent of the natural sciences; But the ori-inality of Sein and 8eit is that the foundation of historicity ta8es place in tande< 6ith an analysis of te<porality 6hich elucidates a different and <ore authentic experience of ti<e; At the heart of this experience there is no lon-er the precise2 fleetin- instant throu-hout linear ti<e2 but the moment of the authentic decision in 6hich the /asein experi: ences its o6n finiteness2 6hich at e"ery <o<ent extends fro< birth to death 1=5 /asein 6hich no lon-er exists ;;; is not past2 in the ontolo-ically strict senseF it is rather having2'een2 there=),H and2 thro6in- itself for6ard in care2 it freely assu<es the destiny of its pri<ordial historicity; Man does not fail into ti<e2 Abut exists as pri<ordial te<porali!ationA; Only because he is in his bein- both anticipatory and ha"in-:been can he assu<e his o6n thro6nness and be2 in the <o<entAof his o6n ti<eA; It 6ould be easy to sho6 ho6 this foundation of historicity as care in the bein- of <an is in no 6ay opposed to the Marxist foundation of historicity in praxis2 albeit in a different area2 6ith both located as polar opposites to "ul-ar historicis<; Thus Heide--er2 in his ,etters on Humanism, 6as able to 6rite that
Athe Marxist concept of history is superior to any other historio-:

raphyA; It is perhaps <ore interestin- to note that in his later 6ritin-2 6hen Sein and 8eit=s proDect of conceptuali!in- ti<e as the fra<e6or8 for understandin- bein- 6as abandoned2 Heide-: -erAs thou-ht is focused on ho62 -i"en that <etaphysics had no6 been o"erta8en2 hu<an historicity could be concei"ed in a totally ne6 6ay; This is not the place to atte<pt an explanation of the concept of Ereignis >E"ent?2 6hich desi-nates both the centre and the extre<e li<it of Heide--erAs thou-ht after Sein
&9+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

TIME AND HI$TOR7

and 8eit. %ro< the perspecti"e 6hich interests us here 6e <ust2 ho6e"er2 at least ac8no6led-e that it allo6s the E"ent to be concei"ed no lon-er as a spatio:te<poral deter<ination but as the openin- of the pri<ary dimension in 6hich all spatio: te<poral di<ensions are based;

IS
7et for e"eryone there is an i<<ediate and a"ailable experience on 6hich a ne6 concept of ti<e could be founded; This is an experience so essential to hu<an bein-s that an ancient 3estern <yth <a8es it hu<an8indAs ori-inal ho<e0 it is pleasure; Aristotle had reali!ed that pleasure 6as a hetero-eneous thin- in relation to the experience of Buantified2 continuous ti<e; HThe for< %eidos& of pleasureA : he 6rites in the 7icomachean Ethics : is perfect %teleion& at any <o<entA2 addin- that pleasure2 unli8e <o"e<ent2 does not occur in a space of ti<e2 but is H6ithin each no6 so<ethin- 6hole and co<pleteA; This lac8 of correspond: ence bet6een pleasure and Buantified ti<e2 6hich 6e see< to ha"e for-otten2 6as so fa<iliar in the Middle A-es that ABuinas could ans6er in the ne-ati"e to the Buestion Hutru< delectatio sit in te<poreAF and it 6as this sa<e a6areness 6hich upheld the @ro"encal troubadoursA Edenic proDect of a perfect pleasure %fin=amors, *oi& outside any <easurable duration; This does not <ean that pleasure has its place in eternity; The 3estern experience of ti<e is split bet6een eternity and con: tinuous linear ti<e; The di"idin- point throu-h 6hich the t6o relate is the instant as a discrete2 elusi"e point; A-ainst this conception2 6hich doo<s any atte<pt to <aster ti<e2 there <ust be opposed one 6hereby the true site of pleasure2 as <anAs
pri<ary di<ension2 is neither precise2 continuous ti<e nor

of pleasure <ust be set a-ainst the e<pty2 continuous and infinite ti<e of "ul-ar historicis<2 so the chronolo-ical ti<e of pseudo: history <ust be opposed by the cairolo-ical ti<e of authentic history; True historical <aterialis< does not pursue an e<pty <ira-e of continuous pro-ress alon- infinite linear ti<e2 but is ready at any <o<ent to stop ti<e2 because it holds the <e<ory that <anAs ori-inal ho<e is pleasure; It is this ti<e 6hich is experienced in authentic re"olutions2 6hich2 as BenDa<in re<e<bers2 ha"e al6ays been li"ed as a haltin- of ti<e and an interruption of chronolo-y; But a re"olution fro< 6hich there sprin-s not a ne6 chronolo-y2 but a Bualitati"e alteration of ti<e 1a cairology), 6ould ha"e the 6ei-htiest conseBuence and 6ould alone be i<<une to absorption into the reflux of restoration; He 6ho2 in the epoche of pleasure2 has re<e<bered history as he 6ould re<e<ber his ori-inal ho<e2 6ill brin- this <e<ory to e"erythin-2 6ill exact this pro<ise fro< each instant0 he is the true re"olutionary and the true seer2 released fro< ti<e not at the <illenniu<2 but no3.

NOTE$
&; Aristotle2 "hysics, I*2 SI*2 transl; @hilip H; 3ic8stead and %rancis #ornford2 ondon0 Heine<ann &'4'; 4; ibid;2 I*2 SIII; +; $aint Au-ustine2 6he !onfessions, Boo8 Ele"en2 SSIII2 transl; %;E; $heed2

ondon0 $heed Q 3ard &'==; =; ibid;2 SI*;


&1(=; 1; In M; Heide--er2

5; Guillau<e dAAu"er-ne2 De tiniverso, in ;agistrum divinale,

Orleans

eternity2 but history; #ontrary to 6hat He-el stated2 it is only as the source and site of happiness that history can ha"e a <eaninfor <an; In this sense2 Ada<As se"en hours in @aradise are the pri<ary core of all authentic historical experience; %or history is not2 as the do<inant ideolo-y 6ould ha"e it2 <anAs ser"itude to continuous linear ti<e2 but <anAs liberation fro< it0 the ti<e of history and the cairns in 6hich <an2 by his initiati"e2 -rasps fa"ourable opportunity and chooses his o6n freedo< in the <o<ent; Eust as the full2 discontinuous2 finite and co<plete ti<e
&9=

(eing and 6ime, transl; Eohn MacBuarrie and Ed6ard Robinson2 Oxford0 Basil Blac86ell &'1(2 p; =54; (; He-el2 "henomenology of Spirit, transK; A;*; Miller2 Oxford0 #larendon @ress &'((2 p; ='+; Illuminations, ); 3; BenDa<in2 HTheses on the @hilosophy of HistoryA2 in transK; Harry Oohn2 Glas-o60 %ontana &'(+; '; Heide--er2 p; =++; &9; Heide--er2 p; =+4;

&95

THE @RIN#E AND THE %ROG


The Cuestion of Method in Adorno and BenDa<in

6heodor @. 5dorno to @alter (en*amin


Ne6 7or82 &9 No"e<ber &'+) Dear 3alter0 The tardiness of this letter le"els a <enacin- char-e a-ainst <e and

all of us; But perhaps this accusation already contains a -rain of


defence; %or it is al<ost self:e"ident that a full <onthAs delay in <y response to your Baudelaire cannot be due to ne-li-ence; The reasons are entirely obDecti"e in nature; They in"ol"e the attitude of all of us to the <anuscript2 and2 considerin- <y special interest in the Buestion of the 5rcades study2 I can probably say 6ithout i<<odesty2 <y attitude in particular; I had been loo8infor6ard to the arri"al of the Baudelaire 6ith the -reatest ea-erness and literally de"oured it; I a< full of ad<iration for the fact that you 6ere able to co<plete it by the appointed ti<e2 and it is this ad<iration 6hich <a8es it particularly hard for <e to spea8 of 6hat has co<e bet6een <y passionate expectation and the text itself; 7our idea of pro"idin- in the (audelaire a <odel for the 5rcades study 6as so<ethin- I too8 "ery seriously2 and I approached the satanic scene <uch as %aust approached the phantas<a-oria of the Broc8en <ountain 6hen he thou-ht that <any a riddle 6ould no6 be sol"ed; May I be excused for ha"in- had to -i"e <yself MephistophelesA reply that <any a riddle poses itself ane6G #an you understand that readin- your treatise2 one of 6hose chapters is entitled 6he <ldneur and another ;odernism, produced a certain disappoint<ent in <eG The basic reason for this disappoint<ent is that those parts of the study 6ith 6hich I a< fa<iliar do not constitute a <odel for the 5rcades proDect so <uch as a prelude to it; Motifs are asse<bled but not elaborated; In your co"erin- letter to Max JHor8hei<erK you represented this as your express intention2 and I a< a6are of the ascetic discipline 6hich you i<pose on yourself to o<it e"ery6here the conclusi"e theoretical ans6ers to Buestions2 and e"en <a8e the Buestions the<sel"es apparent only to initiates; But I 6onder 6hether such an asceticis< can be sustained in the face of such a subDect and in a context 6hich <a8es such po6erful inner de<ands;
&9'

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

THE @RIN#E AND THE %ROG

As a faithful reader of your 6ritin-s I 8no6 "ery 6ell that in your 6or8 there is no lac8 of precedents for your procedure; I re<e<ber2 for exa<ple2 your essays on @roust and on $urrealis< 6hich appeared in /ie literarische @elt. But can this <ethod be applied to the co<plex of the ArcadesG @anora<a and HtracesA2 fQ!ncar and arcades2 <odernis< and the unchan-in-2 3ithout a theoretical H<aterialA 6hich can patiently a6ait interpretation : is this a interpretation 6ithout bein- consu<ed by its o6n auraG Rather2 if the pra-<atic content of these topics is isolated2 does it not conspire

He-elian a <anner as possible; .nless I a< "ery <uch <ista8en2 your dialectic lac8s one thin-0 <ediation; Throu-hout your text there is a tendency to relate the pra-<atic contents of BaudelaireAs A or8 directly to adDacent features in the social history of his ti<e2 ferably econo<ic features; I ha"e in <ind the passa-e about the duty on 6ine2 certain state<ents about the barricades2 or the abo"e: <entioned passa-e about the arcades2 6hich I find particularly proble<atic2 for this is 6here the transition fro< a -eneral theoret: flaneur is especially precarious; I feel this artificiality 6here"er you put thin-s in <etaphorical rather than cate-orical ter<s; A case in point is the passa-e about the transfor<ation of the city into an interieur for the flaneur, 6here one of the <ost po6erful ideas in your study see<s to <e to be presented <aterialistic excursions2 in 6hich one ne"er Buite loses the appre: hension that one feels for a s6i<<er 6ho2 co"ered 6ith -oose

in al<ost de<onic fashion a-ainst the possibility of its o6n

ical discussion of physiolo-ies to the HconcreteA representation of the

interpretationG In one of our unfor-ettable con"ersations in /oni-: stein2 you said that each idea in the 5rcades had to be 6rested a6ay fro< a real< in 6hich <adness rei-ns; I 6onder 6hether such ideas need to be as i<<ured behind i<penetrable layers of <aterial as your ascetic discipline de<ands; In your present study the arcades are introduced 6ith a reference to the narro6ness of the pa"e<ents 6hich i<pede the flaneur on the streets; This pra-<atic introduc:

as a <ere as:if; There is a "ery close connection bet6een such pi<ples2 plun-es into cold 6ater2 and the appeal to concrete <odes
of beha"iour li8e that of the fldneur, or the subseBuent passa-e about the relationship bet6een seein- and hearin- in the city2 6hich not entirely by accident uses a Buotation fro< $i<<el; I a< not entirely happy 6ith all this; 7ou need not fear that I shall ta8e this opportunity to <ount <y hobby:horse; I shall content <yself 6ith ser"in- it2 in passin-2 a lu<p of su-ar2 and for the rest I shall try to -i"e you the theoretical -rounds for <y a"ersion to that particular type of concreteness and its beha"iouristic o"ertones; The reason is that I re-ard it as <ethodolo-ically unfortunate to -i"e conspicuous indi"idual features fro< the real< of the superstructure a A<aterial: isticA turn by relatin- the< i<<ediately and perhaps e"en causally to correspondin- features of the infrastructure; Materialist deter<ina: tion of cultural traits is only possible if it is <ediated throu-h the total social process. E"en thou-h BaudelaireAs 6ine poe<s <ay ha"e been <oti"ated by the 6ine duty and the to6n -ates2 the recurrence of these <otifs in his 6or8 can only be explained by the o"erall social and econo<ic tendency of the a-e : that is2 in 8eepin- 6ith your for<ulation of the proble< sensu strictissimo, by analysis of the co<<odity for< in BaudelaireAs epoch; No one is <ore fa<iliar 6ith the difficulties this in"ol"es than I a<F the phantas<a-oria chapter in <y 3a-ner certainly has not settled these proble<s as yet; 7our 5rcades study in its definiti"e for< 6ill not be able to shir8 the sa<e obli-ation; The direct inference fro< the duty on 6ine to ,5 me du $in i<putes to pheno<ena precisely that 8ind of spontaneity2 palpability and density 6hich they ha"e lost in capitalis<; In this sort of i<<ediate

tion2 it see<s to <e2 preDudices the obDecti"ity of phantas<a-oria : so<ethin- that I so stubbornly insisted upon e"en at the ti<e of our
Hornber- correspondence :: as <uch as does the disposition of the i frst chapter to reduce phantas<a-oria to types of beha"iour of the literary 'oheme. 7ou need not fear that I shall su--est that in your study phantas<a-oria should sur"i"e un<ediated or that the study itself should assu<e a phantas<a-oric character; But the liBuidation of phantas<a-oria can only be acco<plished 6ith true profundity if they are treated as an obDecti"e historico:philosophical cate-ory and not as a H"isionA of social characters; It is precisely at this point that your conception differs fro< all other approaches to the &'th century; But the rede<ption of your postulate cannot be postponed for e"er2 or HpreparedA by a <ore har<less presentation of the <atters in Buestion; This is <y obDection; If in the third part2 to use the old for<ulation2 prehistory in the &'th century ta8es the place &'th century : <ost clearly in @e-uyAs of the prehistory of the state<ent about *ictor Hu-o : this is only another 6ay of statinthe sa<e point; But it see<s to <e that <y obDection by no <eans concerns only the Buestionable procedure of HabstentionA in a subDect 6hich is transported by ascetic refusal of interpretation to6ards a real< to 6hich asceticis< is opposed0 the real< 6here history and <a-ic oscillate; Rather2 I see a close connection bet6een the points at 6hich your essay falls behind its o6n a priori, and its relationship to dialectical <aterialis< : and here in particular I spea8 not only for <yself but eBually for Max2 6ith 6ho< I ha"e had an exhausti"e discussion of this Buestion; et <e express <yself in as si<ple and

&&9

&&&

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

THE @RIN#E AND THE %ROG

: I 6ould al<ost say a-ain2 anthropolo-ical : <aterialis<2 there is a profoundly ro<antic ele<ent2 and the <ore crassly and rou-hly you confront the Baudelairean 6orld of for<s 6ith the necessities of life2 the <ore clearly I detect it; The H<ediationA 6hich I <iss2 and find obscured by <aterialistic:historio-raphic in"ocation2 is nothinother than the theory 6hich your study o<its; The o<ission of the theory affects your e<pirical e"idence itself; On the one hand2 it lends it a decepti"ely epic character2 and on the other it depri"es the pheno<ena2 6hich are experienced only subDecti"ely2 of their real historico:philosophical 6ei-ht; To express it another 6ay0 the theolo-ical <otif of callin- thin-s by their na<es tends to turn into a 6ide:eyed presentation of <ere facts; If one 6ished to put it "ery drastically2 one could say that your study is located at the crossroads of <a-ic and positi"is<; That spot is be6itched; Only theory could brea8 the spell : your o6n resolute2 salutarily speculati"e theory; It is the clai< of this theory alone that I a< brin-in- a-ainst you ;;; This2 I thin82 brin-s <e to the centre of <y criticis<; The i<pression 6hich your entire study con"eys : and not only on <e and <y arcades orthodoxy : is that you ha"e done "iolence to yourself; 7our solidarity 6ith the Institute Jof $ocial ResearchK2 6hich pleases no one <ore than <yself2 has induced you to pay tributes to Marxis< 6hich are not really suited either to Marxis< or to yourself; They are not suited to Marxis< because the <ediation throu-h the total social process is <issin-2 and you superstitiously attribute to <aterial enu<eration a po6er of illu<i: nation 6hich is ne"er 8ept for a pra-<atic reference but only for theoretical construction; They do not suit your o6n indi"idual nature because you ha"e denied yourself your boldest and <ost fruitful ideas in a 8ind of pre:censorship accordin- to <aterialist cate-ories >6hich by no <eans coincide 6ith the Marxist cate: -ories?2 e"en thou-h it <ay be <erely in the for< of the abo"e: <entioned postpone<ent; I spea8 not only for <yself2 6ho a< not Bualified2 but eBually for Hor8hei<er and the others 6hen I tell you that all of us are con"inced that it 6ould not only be beneficial to HyourA production if you elaborated your ideas 6ithout such con: siderations >in $an Re<o you raised counter:obDections to this obDection2 and I a< ta8in- these "ery seriously?2 but that it 6ould also be <ost helpful to the cause of dialectical <aterialis< and the theoretical interests represented by the Institute2 if you surrendered to your specific insi-hts and conclusions 6ithout addin- to the< in-redients 6hich you ob"iously find so distasteful to s6allo6 that I cannot really re-ard the< as beneficial; God 8no6s2 there is only one truth2 and if your intelli-ence lays hold of this one truth in cate-ories 6hich on the basis of your idea of <aterialis< <ay see<
&&4

apocryphal to you2 you 6ill capture <ore of this one truth than if
you use intellectual tools 6hose <o"e<ents your hand resists at e"ery turn;;; ;

@alter (en*amin=s reply to 6heodor @. 5dorno @aris2 ' Dece<ber &'+) Dear Teddie0 It 6ill not ha"e surprised you to notice that it too8 <e so<e ti<e to draft <y reply to your letter of &9 No"e<ber; E"en thou-h the londelay in your letter <ade <e suspect 6hat it 6ould say2 it still ca<e as a Dolt to <e; Also2 I 6anted to a6ait the arri"al of the -alleys 6hich you had pro<ised <e2 and they did not co<e until 1 Dece<ber; The ti<e thus -ained -a"e <e a chance to 6ei-h your critiBue as prudently as I could; I a< far fro< considerin- it unfruitful2 let alone inco<prehensible; I 6ill try to react to it in basic ter<s;;; ; Re<e<berin- our con"ersations in $an Re<o2 I should li8e to proceed to the passa-e in your letter 6here you refer to the< yourself; If I refused there2 in the na<e of <y o6n producti"e interests2 to adopt an esoteric intellectual de"elop<ent for <yself and2 disre-ardin- the interests of dialectical <aterialis<2 ;;; to -et do6n to business2 this in"ol"ed2 in the final analysis2 not ;;; <ere loyalty to dialectical <aterialis<2 but solidarity 6ith the experiences 6hich all of us ha"e shared in the past &5 years; Here too2 then2 it is a <atter of "ery personal producti"e interests of <ineF I cannot deny that they <ay occasionally tend to do "iolence to <y ori-inal interests; Bet6een the< lies an anta-onis< of 6hich I 6ould not e"en in <y drea<s 6ish to be relie"ed; The o"erco<in- of this anta-onis< constitutes the proble< of <y study2 and the proble< is one of construction; I belie"e that speculation can start its neces: sarily bold fli-ht 6ith so<e prospect of success only if2 instead of puttin- on the 6axen 6in-s of the esoteric2 it see8s its source of stren-th in construction alone; It is because of the needs of construction that the second part of <y boo8 consists pri<arily of philolo-ical <aterial; 3hat is in"ol"ed there is less an Hascetic disciplineA than a <ethodolo-ical precaution; Incidentally2 this philolo-ical part 6as the only one that could be co<pleted inde: pendently :: a circu<stance 6hich I had to bear in <ind; 3hen you spea8 of a H6ide:eyed presentation of <ere factsA2 you characteri!e the true philolo-ical attitude; This attitude 6as neces: sary not only for its results2 but had to be built into the construction
&&+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

THE @RIN#E AND THE %ROG

for its o6n sa8e; It is true that the indifference bet6een <a-ic and
positi"is<2 as you so aptly for<ulate it2 should be liBuidated; In other 6ords2 the philolo-ical interpretation of the author ou-ht to be preser"ed and surpassed in the He-elian <anner by dialectical <aterialists; @hilolo-y is the exa<ination of a text 6hich proceeds by details and so <a-ically fixates the reader on it; That 6hich %aust too8 ho<e in blac8 and 6hite2V and Gri<<As de"otion to little thin-s2 are closely related; They ha"e in co<<on that <a-ical ele<ent 6hose exorcis< is reser"ed for philosophy2 here for the final part; Astonish<ent2 so you 6rite in your /ier8e-aard2 indicates Hthe profoundest insi-ht into the relationship bet6een dialectics2 <yth2 and i<a-eA; It <i-ht be te<ptin- for <e to in"o8e this passa-e; But instead I propose to e<end it >as I a< plannin- to do on another occasion 6ith a subseBuent definition of the dialectical i<a-e?; I belie"e it should say that astonish<ent is an outstandin- o'*ect of such an insi-ht; The appearance of closed facticity 6hich attaches to a philolo-ical in"esti-ation and places the in"esti-ator under its spell2 fades to the extent that the obDect is construed in an historical

the fore in your <ind; But so2 therefore2 6ere a nu<ber of i<portant
interpretations2 I a< thin8in- not only of interpretations of poe<s 2 5 cane passante 2 or of prose pieces 2 6he ;an of the !ro3d 2 but abo"e all of the unloc8in- of the concept of <odernity2 6hich it 6as <y particular concern to 8eep 6ithin philolo-ical bounds;;; ;

These t6o letters2A fro< 6hich 6e ha"e extracted the passa-es <ost closely touchin- on the proble< of <ethod2 refer to the essay 6he "aris of the Second Empire in (audelaire.. As part of his collaboration 6ith the Institute of $ocial Research2 BenDa<in had sent this essay to Hor8hei<er and Adorno2 6ho headed the Institute2 in autu<n &'+); The essay 6as concei"ed as part of the 5rcades proDect2 on 6hich BenDa<in 6or8ed2 6ithout achie"in- its co<pletion2 fro< &'4( until his deathF it 6as2 in BenDa<inAs 6ords2 intended to pro"ide a H<odel in <iniatureA for the
5rcades proDect;

perspecti"e; The base lines of this construction con"er-e in our o6n


historical experience; Thus the obDect constitutes itself as a <onad;

In the <onad e"erythin- that used to lie in <ythical ri-idity as a


textual reference co<es ali"e; Therefore it see<s a <isDud-<ent of

the <atter to <e if you find in <y study a Hdirect inference fro< the
le-iti<ately in the philolo-ical context : Dust as it 6ould ha"e been

6ine duty to ,=5me du $in=. Rather2 the Duncture 6as established

At first si-ht2 AdornoAs obDections to the 6or8 see< correct; They ste< fro< <ethodolo-ical reser"ations so deep and stub: born that he could still express the< in al<ost identical ter<s in the early &'59s2 by 6hich ti<e the na<e of the philosopher 6ho too8 his life 6hile fleein- HitlerAs executionersA had acBuired Ha certain ni<busA;A AdornoAs description of BenDa<in in "risms tells us0
his <icrolo-ical and fra-<entary <ethod ne"er entirely inte-rated the idea of uni"ersal <ediation2 6hich in He-el as in Marx produces the totality; He ne"er 6a"ered in his funda<ental con"iction that the s<allest cell of obser"ed reality offset the rest of the 6orld; To interpret pheno<ena <aterialistically <eant for hi< not so <uch to elucidate the< as products of the social 6hole but rather to relate the< directly2 in their isolated sin-ularity2 to <aterial tendencies and

done in the interpretation of a classical 6riter; It -i"es to the poe<

the specific -ra"ity 6hich it assu<es 6hen it is properly read : so<ethin- that has so far not been practised 6idely in the case of Baudelaire; Only 6hen this poe< has thus co<e into its o6n can the 6or8 be touched2 or perhaps e"en sha8en2 by interpretation; %or the poe< in Buestion2 an interpretation 6ould focus not on <atters of taxation but on the si-nificance of intoxication for Baudelaire; If you thin8 of other 6ritin-s of <ine2 you 6ill find that a critiBue of the attitude of the philolo-ist is an old concern of <ine2 and it is basically identical 6ith <y critiBue of <yth; 7et in each case it is this critiBue that pro"o8es the philolo-ical effort itself; To use the lan-ua-e of Elective 5ffinities, it presses for the exhibition of the <aterial content in 6hich the truth content can be historically re"ealed; I can understand that this aspect of the <atter 6as less to

social stru--les;= These obDections are based on an interpretation of Marxist thou-ht and2 specifically2 of the relationship bet6een structure and superstructure2 6hich lays clai< to an enshrined orthodoxy2 a belief in 6hich leads e"ery de"iation fro< this relationship to be instantly dis<issed as H"ul-ar <aterialis<A; 3ithin these
ter<s2 BenDa<inAs analysis of BaudelaireAs poetry is presented as

A In the Studierzinriner scene of GoetheAs <aust, @art I2 the student says0 H3as <an sch6ar! auf 3eiss besit!t2 8ann <an -etrost nach Hause tra-en;A >3hat one possesses in blac8 and 6hite one can safely ta8e ho<e;? &&=

a Hdirect inference fro< the duty on 6ine to ,=5me du vin=2 that is2 as a direct i<putin- of causal relation bet6een isolated features of the superstructure and correspondin- features of the structure2 lea"in- the i<pression of a tribute paid to Marxis<
&&5

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

THE @RIN#E AND THE %ROG

6hich a"ails neither Marxis< nor the author; Not the for<er Hbecause the <ediation throu-h the total social process is <issin-2 and you superstitiously attribute to <aterial enu<era: tion a po6er of illu<ination 6hich is ne"er 8ept for a pra-<atic reference but only for theoretical constructionA; 3hat fla6s the 6or8 throu-hout is H<ediation; Throu-hout your text there is the tendency to relate the pra-<atic contents of BaudelaireAs 6or8 directly to adDacent features in the social history of his
ti<e;A

The accusation of H"ul-ar <aterialis<A could hardly be <ore explicitly expressed2 %ro< AdornoAs doctrinal point of "ie62 ho6e"er2 his ar-u<ent see<s perfectly coherent; 3as it not En-els hi<self 6ho2 in a <uch:Buoted letter to E; Bloch2 stated that only in the final instance is production the deter<inin- historical factorG The ya6nin- -ap bet6een structure and superstructure opened by this Hin the final instanceA is brid-ed by Adorno throu-h the appeal to H<ediationA and the Htotal social processA2 than8s to 6hich H-oodA speculati"e theory is forear<ed a-ainst any Hdirect inferenceA; This Huni"ersal <ediation2 6hich in both He-el and Marx establishes totalityA2 is the unassailable -uarantee of Marxist orthodoxy in AdornoAs critiBue2 6hereby his o6n doctrinal solidity is confir<ed; There re<ains only the re-ret that this critiBue is directed at a text 6hich2 as anyone 6ho has read the2essay in Buestion 6ill 8no62 is perhaps the <ost illu<inatin- analysis of a -lobal cultural <o<ent in the historical de"elop<ent of capitalis<; To this re-ret is added a sense of unease2 deri"in- fro< the fact that a critiBue founded on such incontro"ertible doctrinal bases should ha"e felt the need to borro6 ter<inolo-y that 6ould see< <ore appropriate to the technical "ocabulary of exorcis< and ecclesiastical anathe<a than to a lucid philosophical refuta: tion; Adorno has approached his friendAs text li8e %aust at the Hsatanic sceneA of the phantas<a-oria on the Broc8en Mountain; BenDa<in is accused of allo6in- the pra-<atic content of his topics to conspire Hin al<ost de<onic fashionA a-ainst the possibility of its o6n interpretation2 and of ha"in- obscured <ediation by H<aterialist:historio-raphic in"ocationA; This lan: -ua-e reaches its cul<ination in the passa-e 6here BenDa<inAs <ethod is described in ter<s of a spell0 HIf one 6ished to put it "ery drastically2 one could say that your study is located at the crossroads of <a-ic and positi"is<; That spot is be6itched;
&&1

Only theory could brea8 the spell;;;A; If it is true that e"ery exorcis< betrays its o6n solidarity 6ith the exorci!ed one2 it <ay be le-iti<ate to ad"ance so<e doubts about the theoretical foundation for AdornoAs critiBue; @erhaps the superstitious Hpo6er of illu<inationA 6hose exorcis< is bein- sou-ht is the "ery one bein- duly "indicated by the theory; And because the role of the exorcist is enacted here by A<edia: tionA2 perhaps it is 6orth6hile inspectin- <ore closely the dialectical rationale on 6hich it depends; 3hat Adorno is referrin- to by the ter< H<ediationA is clarified by his 6ords0 HMaterialist deter<ination of cultural traits is only possible if it is <ediated throu-h the total social process.= These 6ords2 li8e the a"o6al that precedes the< : Hlet <e express <yself in as si<ple and He-elian a <anner as possibleA : sho6 that the <ediation 6hich Adorno has in <ind is the one that is the obDect of He-elAs eulo-y in a passa-e fro< the introduction to "henomenology of Spirit, 6hich it is appro: priate to Buote in its entirety0
The True is the 6hole; But the 6hole is nothin- other than the essence consu<<atin- itself throu-h its de"elop<ent; Of the Abso: lute it <ust be said that it is essentially a result, that only in the end is it 6hat it truly isF and that precisely in this consists its nature2 "i!; to be actual2 subDect2 the spontaneous beco<in- of itself; Thou-h it <ay see< contradictory that the Absolute should be concei"ed essentially as a result2 it needs little ponderin- to set this sho6 of contradiction in its true li-ht; The be-innin-2 the principle2 or the Absolute2 as at first i<<ediately enunciated2 is only the uni"ersal; Eust as 6hen I say >all ani<alsA2 this expression cannot pass for a !oolo-y2 so it is eBually plain that the 6ords2 Hthe Di"ineA2 Hthe AbsoluteA2 Hthe EternalA2 etc;2 do not express 6hat is contained in the<F and only such 6ords2 in fact2 do express the intuition as so<ethin- i<<ediate; 3hate"er is <ore than such a 6ord2 e"en the transition to a <ere proposition2 contains a 'ecoming2other that has to be ta8en bac82 or is a <ediation; But it is Dust this that is reDected 6ith horror2 as if absolute co-nition 6ere bein- surrendered 6hen <ore is <ade of <ediation than in si<ply sayin- that it is nothinabsolute2 and is co<pletely absent in the Absolute; But this abhorrence in fact steins fro< i-norance of the nature of <ediation2 and of absolute co-nition itself; %or <ediation is nothinbeyond self:<o"in- selfsa<eness2 or is reflection into self2 the <o<ent of the HIA 6hich is for itself pure ne-ati"ity or2 6hen reduced to

its pure a'straction, simple 'ecoming.F


&&(

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

THE @RIN#E AND THE %ROG

The <ediator interposin- its -ood offices bet6een structure and superstructure to safe-uard <aterialis< fro< "ul-arity2 therefore2 is He-elian dialectical historicis<2 6hich2 li8e all -o: bet6eens2 is pro<pt in de<andin- its percenta-e; This per: centa-e ta8es the for< of renouncin- the concrete -rasp of each sin-le e"ent and each present instant of praxis in fa"our of deferral to the final instance of the total social process; $ince the absolute is HconseBuenceA2 and Honly in the end is there truthA2 each sin-le concrete <o<ent of the process is real only as Hpure ne-ati"ityA 6hich the <a-ic 6and of dialectical <ediation 6ill transfor< : in the end :: into the positi"e; There is but a short step fro< this to declarin- that e"ery <o<ent in history is <erely a <eans to an end2 and the pro-ressi"e historicis< 6hich do<inates nineteenth:century ideolo-y does it in a leap; $<u-: -lin- in this He-elian concept of H<ediationA and Htotal social processA as authentic Marxis< <eans nothin- less than erasin-2 at a stro8e2 the Marxist critiBue of He-elian dialectic as Habstract2 for<al processA 6hich constitutes the <elodic the<e on 6hich there unfolds the counterpoint of the &)== Manu: script; 3hy2 then2 does Adorno : 6ho is certainly not una6are of this critiBue : call upon <ediation Hthrou-h the total social processA precisely to interpret the relationship bet6een structure and superstructure2 6hich Marx no6here constructs as a dialec: tical relationshipG The reason is2 once a-ain2 to be found in the 6ish to be forear<ed a-ainst a dan-er 6hich2 perhaps2 he had a<ple reason to fear; @recisely because Marx does not present the relationship bet6een <aterial base and superstructure as a dialectical one2 and see<s instead to concei"e it as a relationship of causal deter<ination2 it is necessary to call upon a <ediator as a safe-uard a-ainst the possibility of a H"ul-arA interpretation; But since the fear of "ul-arity betrays the "ul-arity of fear2 so the suspicion of a "ul-ar interpretation is a suspicion 6hose for: <ulator has reason to nurture <ost of all about hi<self; It is a fear of this 8ind 6hich inspired in En-els his fa<ous theory of the Hfinal instanceA 6hich is2 it <ust be ad<itted2 a <asterpiece
of hypocrisy; He 6arns a-ainst "ul-ar <aterialis< by statin-0 Accordin- to the <aterialist conception of history2 the ultimately deter<inin- ele<ent in history is the production and; reproduction of real life; More than this neither Marx nor I ha"e e"er asserted; Hence if so<ebody t6ists this into sayin- that the econo<ic ele<ent is the i &&)

only deter<inin- one2 he transfor<s that proposition into a <ean: in-less2 abstract2 senseless phrase;A

But it is clear that if there 6as indeed distortion2 it had already happened at the point 6hen the relationship bet6een <aterial base and superstructure 6as interpreted as a relationship of cause and effect; Once this distortion too8 place2 the only 6ay to sa"e it fro< its o6n "ul-arity 6as to 6a"e the bo-ey of "ul-ar <aterialis< in one hand 6hile the other hand -ot ready to do battle a-ainst it; It is ti<e to spea8 out and say that this bo-ey2 li8e all bo-eys2 exists <ost of all 6ithin those 6ho conDure it up; If Marx is not concerned to specify the 6ay in 6hich the relationship bet6een structure and superstructure is to be construed2 and has no fear of bein- occasionally considered H"ul-arA2 it is because an interpretation of this relationship in a causal sense is not e"en concei"able in Marxist ter<s :: a fact 6hich renders superfluous the dialectical interpretation intended to re<edy this; All causal interpretations are in fact consistent 6ith 3estern <etaphysics2 and presuppose the sunderin- of reality into t6o different ontolo-ical le"els; A <aterialis< 6hich concei"ed of econo<ic factors as causa prima, in the sa<e sense in 6hich the God of <etaphysics is causa sui and first principle of e"erythin-2 6ould only be the ob"erse of <etaphysics2 not its rout; A si<ilar ontolo-ical splittin- irre<ediably betrays the Marxist concept of praxis as a concrete and unitary source reality2 and it is this2 rather than an alle-ed Hdialectical conception of cause and effectA2 6hich should be set a-ainst the "ul-ar interpretation; @raxis is not2 in fact2 so<ethin- 6hich needs a dialectical <ediation in order to be represented as positi"e in the for< of the superstructure2 but is fro< the be-innin- H6hat truly isA2 and fro< the be-innin- possesses 6holeness and concreteness; If <an finds his hu<anity in praxis2 this is not because2 in addition
to carryin- out producti"e 6or82 he also transposes and de"elops

these acti"ities 6ithin a superstructure >by thin8in-2 6ritinpoetry2 etc;?F if <an is hu<an : if he is a 4attungsu3esen, a bein6hose essence is -eneric : his hu<anity and his species:bein<ust be inte-rally present 6ithin the 6ay in 6hich he produces his <aterial life : that is2 6ithin praxis; Marx abolishes the <etaphysical distinction bet6een animal and ratio, bet6een nature and culture2 bet6een <atter and for<2 in order to state
&&'

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

THE @RIN#E AND THE %ROG

that 6ithin praxis ani<ality is hu<anity2 nature is culture2 <atter is for<; If this is true2 the relationship bet6een structure and superstructure can neither be one of causal deter<ination nor one of dialectical <ediation2 but one of direct correspon2 dence. The hypocrisy i<plicit in the separation of econo<ic structure and cultural superstructure re<ains exactly the sa<e if the econo<ic process is <ade the deter<inin- cause2 and it is left to <ediation to -i"e it a bashful co"erin- 6ith its dialectical "eil; The only true <aterialis< is one 6hich radically abolishes this separation2 ne"er seein- in concrete historical reality the su< of structure and superstructure2 but the direct unity of the t6o
ter<s in praxis;

history of art2 >Marxist? history of philosophy2 >Marxist? history of literature2 etc;2 in 6hich in"ariably structure and super: structure2 percei"ed as distinct2 are then theoretically connected in ter<s of the dialectics of the total social processF the only <aterialist point of "ie6 is that 6hich radically o"erco<es the
separation of structure and superstructure2 because praxis is

HThe direct inference fro< the duty on 6ine to ,=5me du vin= is possible and necessary precisely because it is based on this correspondence; @erhaps then H"ul-ar <aterialis<A2 6hich directly relates structure and superstructure2 is not "ul-ar at all2 because in such directness a causal relationship cannot e"en be reasonably posited; *ul-arity is2 rather2 the attribute of that interpretation 6hich2 concei"in- the relationship bet6een struc: ture and superstructure pri<arily as a relationship of cause and effect2 needs H<ediationA and the Htotal social processA to -i"e a se<blance of <eanin- to this relationship2 and at the sa<e ti<e sa"e its o6n idealist coyness; To return to AdornoAs H<a-icA lan-ua-e2 it could be said that dialectical historicis<2 6hose spo8es<an he is2 is the 6itch 6ho2 after turnin- the prince into a fro-2 belie"es she holds 6ithin the <a-ic 6and of dialectics the secret of any possible transfor<a: tion; But historical <aterialis< is the <aiden 6ho 8isses the frori-ht on the <outh2 and brea8s the dialectical spell; %or 6hereas the 6itch 8no6s that2 since e"ery prince is really a fro-2 e"ery fro- can beco<e a prince2 the <aiden does not 8no6 this2 and her 8iss touches precisely 6hat the fro- and the prince ha"e in
co<<on;

posited as the only sin-le obDect in its ori-inal cohesion : that is2 as H<onadA >the <onad2 accordin- to eibni!As definition2 is a si<ple substance2 H6ithout partsA?; The tas8 of -uaranteein- the unity of this <onad is entrusted to philolo-y2 6hose obDect is in fact presented in a polar opposite of 6hat2 for Adorno2 6as a ne-ati"e Dud-e<ent as an Happearance of closed facticityA 6hich excludes any ideolo-ical presupposition; Thus the <onad of praxis is presented abo"e all as a Htextual exa<inationA2 as a hiero-lyphic 6hich the philolo-ist <ust construct in its factitious inte-rity2 in 6hich ele<ents of both structure and superstructure ori-inally cohere in H<ythical ri-idityA; @hilolo-y is the <aiden 6ho2 6ithout any dialectical precautions2 8isses the fro- of praxis on the <outh; 3hat philolo-y has thereby reaped in its closed facticity <ust2 ho6e"er2 be construed in a historical perspecti"e2 by an operation 6hich BenDa<in defines as an 5u fhe'ung of philolo-y; The baselines of this perspecti"e are not2 ho6e"er2 to be found in the Htotal social processA and H-ood speculati"e theoryA2 but Hin our o6n historical experienceA; Only this has the potential to brin- the obDect to life2 detachin- it fro< philolo-yAs <ythical ri-idity; BenDa<in illu<inates this passa-e2 in 6hich philolo-y and history find their <ost authentic connection2 6ith a reference to his essay on HElecti"e AffinitiesA;A It is 6orth Buotin- this passa-e at len-th2 since it defines the relationship bet6een the t6o funda<ental concepts of HsubDect <atterA %Sachgehalt& and Htruth contentA %@ahrheitsgehalt&.
#ritiBue is concerned 6ith the truth content of a 6or8 of art2 the co<<entary 6ith its subDect <atter; The relationship bet6een the t6o is deter<ined by that basic la6 of literature accordin- to 6hich the 6or8As truth content is the <ore rele"ant the <ore incon: spicuously and inti<ately it is bound up 6ith its subDect <atter; If therefore precisely those 6or8s turn out to endure 6hose truth is <ost deeply e<bedded in their subDect <atter2 the beholder 6ho conte<plates the< lon- after their o6n ti<e finds the realia all the <ore stri8in- in the 6or8 as they ha"e faded a6ay in the 6orld; This &
&4&

In the li-ht of these reflections2 6e <ust no6 consider BenDa<inAs <ethod and his defence of it in his reply to Adorno;
In accordance 6ith an only apparently crypto-raphic purpose

6hich characteri!es BenDa<inAs intellectual stance2 this defence ta8es the for< of a crisis of philolo-y in a perspecti"e 6here the obDect of historical 8no6led-e is presented as a H<onadA; The de<and he places upon this for<ulation is that the <aterialist
point of "ie6 6ithin history cannot consist in 6ritin- >Marxist?
&49

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

THE @RIN#E AND THE %ROG

<eans that subDect <atter and truth content2 united in the 6or8As early period2 co<e apart durin- its afterlifeF the subDect <atter beco<es <ore stri8in- 6hile the truth content retains its ori-inal conceal<ent; To an e"er:increasin- extent2 therefore2 the inter: pretation of the stri8in- and the odd2 that is2 of the subDect <atter2 beco<es a prereBuisite for any later critic; One <ay li8en hi< to a paleo-rapher in front of a parch<ent 6hose faded text is co"ered by the stron-er outlines of a script referrin- to that text; Eust as the paleo-rapher 6ould2ha"e to start 6ith readin- the script2 the critic <ust start 6ith co<<entin- on his text; And out of this acti"ity there arises i<<ediately an inesti<able criterion of critical Dud-: <ent0 only no6 can the critic as8 the basic Buestion of all criticis< : na<ely2 6hether the 6or8As shinin- truth content is due to its subDect <atter or 6hether the sur"i"al of the subDect <atter is due to the truth content; %or as they co<e apart in the 6or82 they decide on its i<<ortality; In this sense the history of 6or8s of art prepares their critiBue2 and this is 6hy historical distance increases their po6er; If2 to use a si<ile2 one "ie6s the -ro6in- 6or8 as a funeral pyre2 its co<<entator can be li8ened to the che<ist2 its critic to an alche<ist; 3hile the for<er is left 6ith 6ood and ashes as the sole obDects of his analysis2 the latter is concerned only 6ith the eni-<a of the fla<e itself0 the eni-<a of bein- ali"e; Thus the critic inBuires about the truth 6hose li"in- fla<e -oes on burnin- o"er the hea"y lo-s of the past and the li-ht ashes of life -one by;

understood2 has to be traced bac82 by a painsta8in- 6or8 of <ediation2 to the historical structure 6hich deter<ines itF Buite the contrary : 6hat 6e no6 ha"e before us is praxis itself as ori-in and <onadic historical structure; In beco<in- the nature of history2 it splits >Dust as subDect <atter and truth content are separated in the 6or8? and is eni-<atically present as nature2 as a petrified landscape 6hich is to be brou-ht bac8 to life; The tas8 of the critic is to reco-ni!e in the a<a!ed facticity of the 6or82 6hich is there as a philolo-ical exhibit2 the direct and funda: <ental unity of subDect <atter and truth content2 of structure

and superstructure e<bedded in it;

The relationship delineated here bet6een subDect <atter and truth content pro"ides the <odel for 6hat2 in BenDa<inAs ter<s2 could be the relationship bet6een structure and superstructure; The historian 6ho sees before hi< a di"ided structure and superstructure2 and tries to -i"e a dialectical explanation of the one as base for the other >either 6ay2 dependin- on 6hether he is an idealist or a <aterialist?2 can be li8ened to the che<ist 6ho< BenDa<in describes2 6ho sees only 6ood and ashes2 6hile the historical <aterialist is the alche<ist2 his eyes fixed on the pyre2 in 6hich2 li8e subDect <atter and truth content2 structure and superstructure also beco<e the sa<e thin-; And Dust as subDect <atter and truth content are ori-inally unified in the 6or82 and appear separate only 6ithin te<poral duration2 so structure and superstructure2 unified in praxis2 are separate in the 6or8 that sur"i"es throu-h ti<e; 3hat loo8s upon us fro< the <onu<ents and the rubble of the past and see<s in the< to refer2 al<ost alle-orically2 to a hidden <eanin-2 is not2 then2 a relic of the ideolo-ical superstructure2 6hich2 in order to be
&44

The state<ent Hthe structure is the superstructureA is not Dust a deter<inistic proposition in the causal senseF it is not e"en a dialectical proposition in the ordinary sense2 6here2 in place of the predicate2 should be set the slo6 process of ne-ation and of the 5u fhe'ung. It is a speculati"e proposition : that is to say2 i<<obile and i<<ediate; This is the <eanin- of the Hdialectic at a standstillA 6hich BenDa<in lea"es as a le-acy to historical <aterialis<2 and 6ith 6hich it <ust rec8on sooner or later; %or the ti<e has co<e to end the identification of history 6ith a conception of ti<e as a continuous linear process2 and to understand thereby that the dialectic is Buite capable of bein- a historical cate-ory 6ithout2 as a conseBuence2 ha"in- to fall into linear ti<e; It is not the dialectic 6hich has to be adeBuate to a pre:existin-2 "ul-ar conception of ti<eF on the contrary2 it is this conception of ti<e 6hich <ust be adeBuate to a dialectic that is truly freed fro< all HabstractnessA;

NOTE$
&; These letters2 translated by Harry Oohn2 appear in ondon0 *erso &')92 pp; &41:+(; 42 In 3alter BenDa<in2 !harles (audelaire 2 5 ,yric "oet in the Era of High !apitalism, transJ; Harry Oohn2 ondon0 *erso &')+; transl; +; Theodor Adorno2 HA @ortrait of 3alter BenDa<inA2 in "risms,
$a<uel and $hierry 3eber2 4+1; ondon0 Ne"ille $pear<an &'1(2 p; 44'; =2 ibid;2 p; 5esthetics and "olitics,

5; G;3;%; He-el2 "henomenology of Spirit, transl; A;*; Miller2 Oxford0 #larendon @ress &'((2 p; &&;
&4+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7 1; En-els to E; Bloch2 ondon to /oni-sber-2 4&:44 $epte<ber &)'92 in ;ar 2Engels Selected @orks, in one "olu<e2 ondon0 a6rence Q 3ishart &'1)2 p; ='); untranslated in full; (; This essay2 HGoetheAs Electi"e AffinitiesA2 re<ains as yet It first appeared in Hoff<annsthalAs >&'4=::5?; 7eue /eutsche (eitrdge
The passa-e Buoted here is translated in Hannah ArendtAs Introduction to

Illuuiinatiens, transl; Harry Oohn2 Glas-o60 %ontana &'(+;

%AB E AND HI$TOR7


#onsiderations on the
Nati"ity #rib

&4=

There is no 6ay of understandin- the crib if it is not first and fore<ost understood that the i<a-e of the 6orld 6hich it presents in <iniature is a historical i<a-e; %or 6hat it sho6s us is the 6orld of the fable precisely at the <o<ent 6hen it 6a8es fro< enchant<ent to enter history; The fable had been able to separate itself fro< initiation rites only by abolishin- the experience of the <ystery 6hich 6as at its centre2 and transfor<: in- it into enchant<ent; The creature of the fable is subDected to the trials of initiation and the silence of the <ystery2 but 6ithout experiencin- the< :: in other 6ords2 by under-oin- the< as a spell; It is be6itch<ent rather than participation in secret 8no6led-e that depri"es it of speechF but this be6itch<ent is eBually a disenchant<ent fro< the <ystery and2 as such2 <ust be shattered and o"erco<e; 3hat beca<e fa'ula muta >it is in this dense oxy<oron that a character in @etroniusA Satyricon crystal: li!es the <utis< of the reli-ions of late AntiBuity2 sayin- of Eo"e0 H; ; ; inter coelicolas fabula <uta tacesA? <ust redisco"er the po6er of speech; Thus2 in the fairy tale2 6hile <an2 spellbound2 is struc8 du<b2 nature2 spellbound2 spea8s; 3ith this exchan-e of speech and silence2 history and nature2 the fairy tale proph: esies its o6n disenchant<ent in history; The crib -rasps the 6orld of the fairy tale in the <essianic instant of this transition; Hence the ani<als 6ho2 in the fairy tale2 left the pure2 <ute lan-ua-e of nature and spo8e2 are no6 du<bstruc8; Accordin- to an ancient le-end2 for a <o<ent on #hrist<as ni-ht ani<als acBuire the po6er of speech0 these are the creatures of fairy tales appearin- for the last ti<e in their enchant<ent before re:enterin- for e"er the <ute lan-ua-e of nature; In the 6ords of the pseudony<ous HMatthe6s BibleA2A to 6ho< 6e o6e the entry of the ox and ass into the icono-raphy of the nati"ity0 HThe ox 8no6s its <aster and the ass the <an-er of the ordA; In one of the earliest descriptions of the crib2 $aint A<brose counterposes the 3himpering of the God:child2 6hich is heard2 6ith the silent lo3ing of the ox 6ho reco-ni!es his
&4(

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

%AB E AND HI$TOR7

ord; ObDects2 6hich enchant<ent had ani<ated and <ade stran-e2 are no6 returned to the innocence of the inor-anic2 and stand beside <an as docile i<ple<ents and fa<iliar tools; Tal8in- hens2 ants and birds2 the -oose 6ho lays the -olden e--2 the don8ey 6ho shits <oney2 the table that sets itself and the stic8 that beats on co<<and0 the crib <ust release all this fro< its spell; As food2 <erchandise or instru<ents : in other 6ords2 in their hu<ble econo<ic apparel : nature and inor-anic obDects are bundled up on to the <ar8et stall2 displayed on tables at inns >the inn : 6hich2 in fairy tale2 is the site assi-ned for cri<e and deception : here reco"ers its reassurin- -arb? or han- fro< larder ceilin-s; Man2 too2 6ho< the spell of the fairy tale had re<o"ed fro< his econo<ic function2 is no6 reconsi-ned to it 6ith an exe<plary -esture0 the decisi"e -esture that se"ers the hu<an 6orld of the crib fro< that of the fairy tale; In the fairy tale2 all is a<bi-uous -esticulation of la6 and <a-ic2 conde<nin- or absol"in-2 prohibitin- or per<ittin-2 spellbindin- or spellbrea8in-F or the eni-<atic se"erity of astrolo-ical decans and fi-ures2 sanctioninthe chain of destiny 6hich binds all creatures >e"en if2 on all this2 the fairy tale unfurls the s6oonin- "eil of enchant<ent?F 6hile in the crib <an is returned to the uni"ocality and transparency of his historical -esture; Tailors and 6oodcutters2 shepherds and peasants2 -reen-rocers and butchers2 hunters and inn8eepers2 roast:chestnut and 6ater "endors0 this 6hole profane uni"erse of the <ar8et and the street e<er-es into history in a -esture fro< the prehistoric depths of that 6orld 6hich Bachofen defined as HethericA2 and 6hich had a short:li"ed re"i"al in /af8aAs stories; It could be said that the so<nolent and <ias<ic 6orld of the fairy tale is the <ediu< bet6een the <ysteries of the hierophants and the historical -esture of the crib; %or in the <essianic ni-ht2 the creatureAs -esture is loosed of any <a-ical:Duridical:di"inatory density2 and beco<es si<ply hu<an and profane; Here2 there is no lon-er any si-n or <ar"el in the di"inatory senseF but2 since all si-ns ha"e their fulfil<ent2 <an is freed by si-ns0 thus the sibyls in Ala<anniAs crib at $an Gio"anni in #arbonara stand <ute before the <an-er2 and in the Neapolitan cribs2 the terata and the monstra of the classical readin- of entrails appear as lau-hin- -rotesBues >re<iniscent of Giaco<o #olo<boAs little fi-ure of the -oitred 6o<an or the
&4)

cripples by an anony<ous ei-hteenth:century hand in the $an Martino <useu<? 6hich no lon-er si-nify so<e future e"ent2 <erely the creatureAs profane innocence; Hence2 in contrast to the static <ystery of the early nati"ities2 the realis< 6ith 6hich the creatures are captured in their e"eryday -esturesF hence2 in a scene 6hich should be the adoration of a -od2 the precocious absence of the icono-raphic con"ention of the adorer2 so characteristic of scenes fro< pa-an and palaeo:#hristian cults; Only the representati"es of the 6orld of <a-ic and la62 the Ma-i2 are featured in an act of adoration : at least to be-in 6ith2 before they <elt into the na<eless cro6d0 else6here2 all ritual traces dissol"e into the econo<ic innocence of the Buotidian; E"en the shepherdsA offerin- of food has no sacrificial intentionF it is a secular -esture rather than a ritual piaculum. The sleeper 6ho2 stran-ely2 ne"er fails to appear near the <an-er can perhaps be seen as a fi-ure fro< the 6orld of fairy tale2 unable to 6a8e on rede<ption and destined to continue his crepuscular life a<on- childrenF e"en he does not sleep the sleep of the incu'atio, laden 6ith di"inatory presa-es2 nor2 li8e the $leepinBeauty2 the ti<eless sleep of be6itch<ent2 but the profane sleep of the li"in- creature; As in the Boo8 of Ea<es or "roto2 evangelium 1=I Eoseph 6as 6al8in- and I 6al8ed not ;;; and they that 6ere che6in- che6ed not;;; ; And behold there 6ere sheep bein- dri"en2 and they 6ent not for6ard but stood stillF and the shepherd lifted his hand to s<ite the< 6ith his staff2 and his hands re<ained up4? ti<e stood still : not in the eternity of <yth and fairy tale2 but in the <essianic inter"al bet6een t6o <o<ents2 6hich is the ti<e of history >AAnd of a sudden thin-s <o"ed on6ard in their course+?; And at the be-innin- of the se"enteenth century2 6hen the first ani<ated cribs 6ill be constructed2 the deeply alle-orical intent of the BaroBue 6ill literally set the scansion of this historic H6al8 6ithout 6al8in-A in the rhy<ed repetition of the shepherdAs step2 or the <o"e<ent
of the -ra!in- sheep;

The 8ey to this profane liberation fro< enchant<ent is <iniatur: i!ation2 that Hsal"ation of the s<allA 6hich : as is sho6n in e"ery period by the taste for puppets2 <arionettes and those 'i'elots that ei-hteenth:century Europe called petites 'esognes d=Italie 2 is 6ithout doubt a definin- feature of Italian cultural physi: o-no<y2 and 6hich 6e can already see at 6or8 in the 6orld of
&4'

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

%AB E AND HI$TOR7

late AntiBuity2 al<ost li8e a counter:echo in 6hich the ri-idified 6orld of the <onu<ental entrusts its hope of historical a6a8en: in-; Those sa<e ele<ents 6hich Rie-l so aptly discerned in <iniatures2 <osaics and late:Ro<an i"ories : the axial isolation of the fi-ures2 the e<ancipation of space and the H<a-icalA lin8in- of each thin- : are found precisely in the crib; It is as if the H<iniaturistA2 the HcolouristA and the HillusionistA >thus schol: ars christened the three un8no6n authors of the stri8in- Genesis <iniatures in *ienna2 6hich are petrified in their <ute astrolo-: ical:fairy:tale facies) 6ere <iraculously -uidin- the hands of #elebrano2 the In-aldi2 Giaco<o $an<artino2 oren!o Mosca2 %rancesco Gallo2 To<<aso $chettino and the anony<ous fi-ure: <a8ers 6ho still 6or8 in so<e sur"i"in- Neopolitan 6or8shops; But the magical lin8 bet6een the fi-ures has been co<pletely resol"ed in a historical lin8; Each fi-ure in the crib is certainly a 6hole in itself2 not united 6ith the others 'y any plastic or spatial tie2 si<ply set <o<entarily beside the<F ho6e"er2 all the i f -ures2 6ithout exception2 are 6elded into a sin-le structure by the in"isible adhesi"e of participation in the <essianic e"ent of the rede<ption; E"en those cribs : li8e the #uccitiello in the $an Martino <useu< : in 6hich the dri"e to6ards co<position appears stron-er are2 in their inti<ate detail2 a <otley >for in essence they <ust ha"e the potential to proliferate and expand to infinity?F the ense<bleAs absolute unity is neither spatial nor <aterial2 but historical; At the centre of the cribAs fi-urati"e intent is not a <ythic e"ent or2 e"en less2 a spatio:te<poral happenin- >that is2 a chrono: lo-ical e"ent?2 but a cairolo-ical e"ent; It is in its essence a representation of the historicity 6hich ta8es place in the 6orld throu-h the <essianic birth2 Thus in the su<ptuous2 endless proliferation of fi-ures and episodes2 in 6hich the ori-inal sacred scene is 6ell:ni-h for-otten and the eye tires of searchin- for it2 all distinctions bet6een the sacred and the profane fall a6ay2 and the t6o spheres are brid-ed in history; A-ainst the <on: u<entality of a 6orld no6 fixed and fro!en in the inflexible la6s of the heimarmene : la6s not so dissi<ilar fro< the ones by 6hich our o6n epoch feels itself2 6ith Do"ial horror2 beinpushed and dra--ed into Hpro-ressA : the crib counterposes the <inutiae of a history in 6hat one <i-ht call its nascent state2 in 6hich e"erythin- is <ere separate shred and splinter2 but each sli"er is i<<ediately and historically co<plete;
&+9

This is 6hy2 at this "ery point 6hen the crib is about to beco<e an obsolete custo< and see<s e"en to ha"e stopped spea8in- to the childhood 6hich2 as eternal -uardian of 6hat <erits sur: "i"al2 had held it in safe8eepin- up to our ti<e2 to-ether 6ith play and fairy tale2 the clu<sy creatures of the last Neopolitan i f -urines see< to babble out a <essa-e intended for us2 citi!ens of this extre<e2 threadbare frin-e of a century of history; %or the stri8in- feature in the 6or8 of the anony<ous sur"i"ors of $paccanapoli is the infinite discrepancy bet6een the fi-urin- of <an : 6hose linea<ents are as if blurred in a drea<2 6hose -estures are torpid and i<precise : and the delirious2 lo"ini<pulse that shapes the displays of to<atoes2 auber-ines2 cab: ba-es2 pu<p8ins2 carrots2 <ullet2 crayfish2 octopus2 <ussels and le<ons that lie in "iolet2 red and iridescent <ounds on the <ar8et stalls a<on- bas8ets2 scales2 8ni"es and earthen6are pots; Are 6e to see2 in this discrepancy2 the si-n that nature is once <ore about to enter the fairy tale2 that once <ore it as8s history for speech2 6hile <an : be6itched by a history 6hich2 for hi<2 a-ain assu<es the dar8 outline of destiny : is struc8 du<b by a spellG .ntil one ni-ht2 in the shado6:li-ht 6here a ne6 crib 6ill li-ht up fi-ures and colours yet un8no6n2 nature 6ill once a-ain be i<<ured in its silent lan-ua-e2 the fable 6ill a6a8en in history2 and <an 6ill e<er-e2 6ith his lips unsealed2 fro< <ystery to speech;

NOTE$
&; The HMatthe6s BibleA2 issued in &5+( by Eohn Ro-ers2 under the pseudo: ny< Tho<as Matthe6s; 4; The Boo8 of Ea<es2 S*III0 &2 in 6he 5pocryphal 7e3 6estament, transi; M;R; Ea<es2 Oxford0 #larendon @ress &'4=2 p; =1; +; ibid;

&+&

NOTE$ ON GE$T.RE

I
By the end of the nineteenth century the -estures of the 3estern bour-eoisie 6ere irretrie"ably lost;

In &))1 Gilles de la Tourette2 for<erly an intern at the @aris Hospital and the $alpetriere2 had his Etudes cliniques et physi2 ologiques sur la marche published by Delahaye and ecrosnier; Ne"er before had one of the <ost co<<on hu<an -estures been analysed accordin- to strictly scientific <ethods; %ifty:three years earlier2 6hen the bour-eoisie 6as still untouched by scruples of conscience2 the proDect of a -eneral patholo-y of social life heralded by Bal!ac had produced nau-ht but the fifty : 6hen all 6as said and done2 disappointin- : pa-es of the 6heorie de la demarche. Nothin- discloses the distance : not only a te<poral distance : 6hich separates the t6o approaches as <uch as the description Gilles de la Tourette -i"es of a hu<an step; 3here Bal!ac sa6 only an expression of <oral character2 here the -a!e at 6or8 is already prophetic of the cine<a0
3ith the le- as support2 the ri-ht foot is raised fro< the -round in a rollin- <otion fro< the heel to the tips of the toes2 6hich are the last part to be lifted a6ay0 the 6hole le- is brou-ht for6ard2 and the foot touches do6n at the heel; At this <o<ent2 the left foot2 6hich has co<pleted its roll and no6 rests only on the tips of the toes2 in turn lea"es the -roundF the left le- is carried for6ard2 <o"es closely alon-side the ri-ht le- and -oes past it2 and the left foot touches the -round at the heel Dust as the ri-ht is finishin- its roll for6ard;A

Only an eye endo6ed 6ith a "ision of this 8ind could for<ulate the footprint <ethod 6hich Gilles de la Tourette sets out so boldly to perfect; A roll of 6hite 6allpaper2 around se"en or ei-ht <etres lon- and fifty centi<etres 6ide2 is nailed to the floor and split in half len-th6ise 6ith a pencilled line; In the experi<ent the soles of the subDectAs feet are then sprin8led 6ith
&+5

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

NOTE$ ON GE$T.RE

po6dered iron sesBuioxide2 6hich -i"es the< a nice rust:red colour; The footprints left by the patient 6al8in- alon- the -uidin- line enable the -ait to be <easured 6ith perfect precision accordin- to different para<eters >len-th of stride2 distance breadth6ise2 an-le of do6n6ard pressure2 etc;?; If 6e study the reproductions of the footprints published by Gilles de la Tourette2 6e cannot fail to be re<inded of the "arious series of split:second photo-raphs that Ead6eard Muybrid-e <ade in those "ery sa<e years at the .ni"ersity of @ennsyl"ania2 usin- a battery of t6enty:four ca<eras; The H<an <o"in- at a 6al8in- paceA2 the H<an runnin- 6ith a rifleA2 the H6o<an 6al8in- and pic8in- up a Du-A2 the H6o<an 6al8in- and blo6in- a 8issA are the "isible and fortunate t6ins of those sic8 and anony<ous creatures 6ho ha"e left these traces; A year before the 6al8in- studies2 Tourette had published his Etude sur une affection nerveuse caracterisee par de l=incoordi2 nation motrice accompagnee d=echolalie et de coprolalie, 6hich 6as to pro"ide the clinical context for 6hat 6ould later beco<e 8no6n as TouretteAs $yndro<e; Here that sa<e isolation of the <ost e"eryday <o"e<ent that had been <ade possible by the footprint <ethod is applied to a description of a sta--erinproliferation of tics2 in"oluntary spas<s and <anneris<s that can be defined only as a -enerali!ed catastrophe of the -estural sphere; The patient is incapable of either be-innin- or fully enactin- the <ost si<ple -esturesF if he or she <ana-es to initiate a <o"e<ent2 it is interrupted and sent a6ry by uncontrollable Der8in-s and shudderin-s 6hereby the <uscles see< to dance >chorea? Buite independently of any <otor purpose; The eBui"a: lent of this disorder in the sphere of 6al8in- is described in exe<plary <anner by #harcot in the fa<ous ,econs du 7ardi:
There he is2 settin- out 6ith his body leanin- for6ard2 and the lo6er li<bs ri-id and held ti-ht to-ether balanced on tiptoeF they slide o"er the floor so<eho62 pro-ressin- by <eans of a 8ind of rapid t6itchin- ;;; 6hen the subDect has thrust hi<self for6ard in this 6ay he appears at e"ery <o<ent to be on the "er-e of fallin- headlon-F at any rate it is "irtually i<possible for hi< to stop of his o6n "olition; .sually he needs to han- on to so<e other body near hi<; ItAs as if heAs an auto<aton <o"ed by a sprin-2 and in these stiff for6ard <o"e<ents2 Der8y li8e con"ulsions2 there is nothin- re<inis: cent of the looseness of 6al8in-;;; ; In the end2 after "arious atte<pts2 he sets off2 and follo6in- the <echanis< Dust described2 he
&+1

slides rather than 6al8s across the floor2 6ith his le-s stiff2 or at least scarcely bendin- at all2 6ith abrupt t6itchin- <o"e<ents so<eho6 ta8in- the place of steps;

3hat is <ost extraordinary is that after these disorders had been obser"ed in thousands of cases fro< &))5 on6ards2 there is practically no further record of the< in the early years of the t6entieth century : until the 6interAs day in &'(& 6hen Oli"er $ac8s2 6al8in- throu-h the streets of Ne6 7or82 sa6 6hat he belie"ed 6ere three cases of Tourettis< 6ithin the space of a fe6 <inutes; One of the hypotheses that can be constructed to explain this disappearance is that ataxy2 tics and dystonia had2 in the course of ti<e2 beco<e the nor<2 and that beyond a certain point e"eryone had lost control of their -estures2 6al8inand -esticulatin- frenetically; This2 at least2 is the i<pression one has in loo8in- at the fil<s that Marey and u<iere be-an to <a8e in those "ery years; II
In the cine<a2 a society that has lost its -estures see8s to re: appropriate 6hat it has lost 6hile si<ultaneously recordin- that loss;

An era that has lost its -estures is2 for that "ery reason2 obsessed 6ith the<F for people 6ho are bereft of all that is natural to the<2 e"ery -esture beco<es a fate; And the <ore the ease of these -estures 6as lost under the influence of in"isible po6ers2 the <ore life beca<e indecipherable; It is at this sta-e that the bour-eoisie : 6hich2 only a fe6 decades earlier2 had still been i f r<ly in possession of its sy<bols : falls a "icti< to interiority and entrusts itself to psycholo-y; Niet!sche is the point 6here this polar tension in European culture reaches its pea8 : a tension to6ards the efface<ent and loss of the -esture on one hand and2 on the other2 its trans<uta: tion into a destiny; %or it is only as a -esture in 6hich potential and action2 nature and artifice2 contin-ency and necessity2 beco<e indiscernible >in the final analysis2 therefore2 solely as theatre? that the idea of eternal return <a8es sense; 6hus Spake 8arathustra is the ballet of a hu<anity bereft of its -estures; And 6hen the era beca<e a6are of this2 then >too lateI? be-an the
&+(

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

NOTE$ ON GE$T.RE

headlon- atte<pt to re-ain in e tremis those lost -estures; The dance of Isadora and Dia-hile"2 the no"els of @roust2 the -reat +ugendestil poets fro< @ascoli to Ril8e and ulti<ately : in the <ost exe<plary 6ay : silent cine<a2 trace the <a-ic circle in

6hich hu<anity sou-ht2 for the last ti<e2 to e"o8e 6hat 6as

slippin- throu-h its fin-ers for e"er; #onte<porary 6ith this2 Aby 3arbur- 6as initiatin- those researches 6hich only the short:si-htedness of a psycholo-i!inart history could describe as Ha science of the i<a-eA2 6hereas in reality2 at their centre 6as -esture as a crystal of historical <e<ory2 its hardenin- into a fate2 and the strenuous effort of artists and philosophers >"er-in- on <adness in 3arbur-As case? to free it fro< this by <eans of a polari!in- dyna<ic; Because these researches 6ere conducted by <eans of i<a-es2 it 6as belie"ed that the i<a-e 6as also their obDect; Instead2 3arburtransfor<ed the i<a-e >6hich for Eun- 6ill furnish the <odel of the <etahistoric sphere of archetypes? into a resolutely historical and dyna<ic ele<ent; In this sense2 the ;nemosyne atlas2 6ith its t6o thousand or so photo-raphs2 6hich he left unfinished2 is not a fixed repertoire of i<a-es2 but "irtually a <o"in- repre: sentation of the -estures of 3estern hu<an8ind fro< classical Greece up to %ascis< >in other 6ords2 so<ethin- closer to De Eorio than to @ano"s8y?; 3ithin each section the indi"idual i<a-es are treated <ore as the fra<es of a fil< than as an autono<ous reality >at least in the sense intended by BenDa<in 6hen he co<pared the dialectical i<a-e 6ith those little picture: boo8s prefi-urin- the cine<a2 6hich2 6hen their pa-es are turned Buic8ly2 -i"e the i<pression of <otion?; III
Gesture rather than i<a-e is the cine<atic ele<ent;

bearin- on the status of the i<a-e 6ithin <odernity; But this <eans that the <ythical fixity of the i<a-e has been bro8en2 and 6e should not really spea8 of i<a-es here2 but of -estures; In fact2 every i<a-e is ani<ated by an antino<ous polarity0 on the one hand this is the reification and efface<ent of a -esture >the imago either as sy<bol or as the 6ax <as8 of the corpse?F on the other it <aintains the dynamis >as in Muybrid-eAs split:second photo-raphs2 or in any photo-raph of a sportin- e"ent?; The for<er corresponds to the <e<ory of 6hose "oluntary recall it ta8es possessionF the latter to the i<a-e flashed in the epiphany of in"oluntary <e<ory; And 6hile the for<er d6ells in <a-ical isolation2 the latter al6ays refers beyond itself2 to6ards a 6hole of 6hich it is a part; E"en the ;ona ,isa, e"en *ela!Bue!As ;eninas, can be seen not as ti<eless static for<s but as fra-<ents of a -esture or as fra<es of a lost fil<2 solely 6ithin 6hich 6ould they re-ain their true <eanin-; %or in e"ery i<a-e there is al6ays a 8ind of ligatio at 6or82 a po6er that paralyses2 6hose spell needs to be bro8enF it is as if2 fro< the 6hole history of art2 a <ute in"ocation 6ere raised to6ards the freein- of the i<a-e in the -esture; This <uch 6as expressed in those Gree8 le-ends about statues brea8in- the fetters that contain the< and be-innin- to <o"eF but it is also the intention that philosophy entrusts to the idea2 6hich is not at all : as it is co<<only interpreted : a static archetype2 but rather a constellation in 6hich pheno<ena are co<posed in a -esture; #ine<a leads i<a-es bac8 into the real< of -esture; Accord: in- to the splendid definition i<plicit in Bec8ettAs 6raum and 7ac't, this is the drea< of a -esture; Brin-in- the ele<ent of a6a8enin- into this drea< is the tas8 of the fil<:<a8er;

I*
Because it is centrally located in the -esture2 not the i<a-e2 cine<a

essentially ran8s 6ith ethics and politics >and not <erely 6ith Gilles Deleu!e has sho6n that cine<a 6ipes out the fallacious psycholo-ical distinction bet6een i<a-e as psychic reality and <o"e<ent as physical reality; %il< i<a-es are neither Hti<eless posturesA >li8e the for<s of the classical 6orld? nor Hstatic sectionsA of <o"e<ent2 but H<o"in- sectionsA2 i<a-es 6hich are the<sel"es in <otion2 6hich Deleu!e calls H<o"in-:picturesA; 3e need to extend Deleu!eAs analysis and sho6 that it has a -eneral
&+)

aesthetics?;

3hat is -estureG An obser"ation by *arro holds an extre<ely "aluable clue; He inscribes -esture in the sphere of action2 but distin-uishes it clearly fro< actin- %agere& and doin- %facere&:
A person can <a8e % facere& so<ethin- and not enact %agere& it2 as a
&+'

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

poet <a8es a play2 but does not act it 1agere in the sense of playina part?F on the other hand the actor acts the play2 but does not <a8e it; $o the play is <ade %fit& by the poet2 but not acted Ja-iturK by hi<F it is acted by the actor2 but not <ade by hi<; 3hereas the imperator >the <a-istrate in 6ho< supre<e po6er is in"ested? of 6ho< the expression res gerere is used >to carry so<ethin- out2 in the sense of ta8in- it upon oneself2 assu<in- total responsibility for it?2 neither <a8es nor acts2 but ta8es char-e2 in other 6ords carries the burden

of it %sustinet&..

3hat characteri!es -esture is that in it there is neither produc: tion nor enact<ent2 but underta8in- and supportin-; In other 6ords2 -esture opens the sphere of ethos as the <ost fittinsphere of the hu<an; But in 6hat 6ay is an action underta8en and supportedG In 6hat 6ay does a res beco<e res gesta, a si<ple fact beco<e an e"entG *arroAs distinction bet6een facere and a-ere deri"es2 in the final analysis2 fro< Aristotle; In a fa<ous passa-e fro< the 7icomachean Ethics, he contrasts the< thus0 HAction %pra is& and production %poiesis& are -eneri: cally different; %or production ai<s at an end other than itselfF but this is i<possible in the case of action2 because the end is <erely to do 6hat is ri-ht;A

NOTE$
&; A a Da<be ser"ant de point dAappui2 le pied droit se soule"e du sot en subissant un <ou"e<ent dAenroule<ent allant du talon a tAextre<ite des orteils Bui Buittent terre en dernier lieu0 la Da<be toute entiere est portee en a"ant2 passe a cote de la Da<be droite dont elle tend a se rapprocher2 la depasse et le pied -auche "ient toucher le sot par le talon alors Bue le droit ache"e sa re"olution;A 4; *arro2 /e ,ingua ,atina, *I2 ((;

&=9

The re"ie6 6hose proDect is presented here <a8es its clai<s to


authority in precise proportion to its a6areness of its o6n

situation; Only in so far as it attains such a6areness : at a ti<e that has lost si-ht of any other criterion for e"ents than H6hat the ne6spapers sayA2 Dust 6hen H6hat the ne6spapers sayA no lon-er has a Dot to do 6ith reality can it aspire 6ithout arro-ance to find 6ithin itself the criterion of its o6n ti<eliness; The point of "ie6 6hich it intends to adopt is in fact so radically and ori-inally historical that it can easily renounce any chronolo-ical perspecti"e2 instead includin- a<on- its tas8s a HdestructionA of literary historio-raphy; The site it chooses to inhabit is neither a continuity nor a ne6 be-innin-2 but an interruption and a <ar-in2 and it is the experience of this <ar-in as foundinhistorical e"ent 6hich constitutes the "ery basis of its ti<eliness; The <ar-in in Buestion is the one produced early in <odern 3estern culture bet6een cultural patri<ony and its trans<is: sion2 bet6een truth and its <odes of trans<ission2 bet6een 6ritin- and authority; Our culture is such a lon- 6ay fro< ha"in- noticed this <ar-in that e"en its for<ulation 6ithout recourse to cate-ories borro6ed fro< other cultures presents al<ost insur<ountable difficulties2 %or a <ore precise percep: tion of it one could use the Tal<udic cate-ories of Halacha >the a6 in itself2 the truth separated fro< any <ythical consistency? and 5ggada >the a6 in its e<otional consistency2 in its translatability?2 or the Arabic cate-ories of shari=at and hagiqat, 6hich desi-nate the a6 in its literalness and its spiritual sense2 respecti"elyF or ha"e recourse to the t6o cate-ories HsubDect <atterA and Htruth contentA2 6hose pri<ary unity and separation in the course of ti<e2 in BenDa<inAs "ie62 <ar8 the essence and historicity of the 6or8 of art; In these ter<s2 3estern culture could be characteri!ed as beinirreparably ri"en bet6een Halacha and 5ggada, bet6een shar2 i=at and hagiqat, bet6een subDect <atter and truth content; Any healin- bet6een these ter<s has beco<e i<possible >this2
&=+

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

@ROEE#T %OR A RE*IE3

incidentally2 is e"ident in the loss of the co<<entary and the -loss as creati"e for<s? : at least e"er since the de<ise of the <edie"al theory of the four <eanin-s of 6ritin-2 >This theory has nothin- to do 6ith the -ratuitous exercise of four successi"e and distinct interpretations of a textF rather2 it ta8es its place a<on- the<2 in the li"in- relationship bet6een subDect <atter and truth content;? Thus there is a truth2 6ithout the possibility of trans<ittin- itF there are <odes of trans<ission2 6ithout anythin- bein- either trans<itted or tau-ht; This is the essential disDunction that recurs ti<e and a-ain in our culture as contrast bet6een old and ne62 past and present2 anciens and modernes. 3hat this querelle no6 pre"ents us fro< seein- is that old and ne6 ali8e ha"e beco<e obdurately inaccessible; %or it is untrue that our ti<e can be characteri!ed <erely by its obli"iousness to traditional "alues and a scepticis< about the past; On the contrary2 perhaps no other epoch has been so obsessed by its o6n past and so unable to create a "ital relationship 6ith it2 so <indful of Halacha and so unfit to -i"e it an a--adic consistency; In our century estran-e<ent and the ready:<ade2 appropriation and Buotation2 ha"e represented the last atte<pts to reconstruct this relationship >at its <o<ents of co<<it<ent2 the a"ant:-arde has ne"er turned to the future2 but represents an extre<e effort to relate to the past?; Their decline <ar8s the start of a ti<e in 6hich the present2 petrified in an archaic facies, re<ains al6ays a 6asteland2 6hile the past2 in its estran-ed <as8 of <odernity2 can be only a <onu<ent to the present; It is this clea"a-e2 this <ar-in2 6hich the re"ie6 clai<s as its site; %or if the pheno<enon 6e ha"e described certainly concerns 3estern culture as a 6hole2 it is ne"ertheless in Italian culture
that it is <ost pre"alent; By co<parison 6ith other European

appeals to the ne6 fall bac8 into the past2 all de<ystifications are <ystifications; Hence the particular fra-ility of all intellectual positions in Italy2 6hich in"ariably see< in perpetual dread of bein- s6ept a6ay; Hence too the stren-th of those 6ho reali!e that there is no li"in- tradition to besto6 le-iti<acyF they are relics already2 already s6ept a6ay2 but as relics they do not fear the -usts of 6ind2 and can e"en send out si-nals; The tas8 i<posed on the re"ie6 by its situation cannot thereby si<ply be defined as a HdestructionA2 albeit a necessary one2 of tradition2 but rather as a Hdestruction of destructionA2 in 6hich the destruction of the <ode of trans<ission2 6hich <ar8s our culture funda<entally2 is dialectically brou-ht to li-ht; It is only in a HdestructionA of this 8ind that the cate-orical structures of Italian culture can beco<e "isible2 li8e the architectural s8eleton of a house in fla<es; The choice of co<edy and the refusal of tra-edyF the do<ination of the architectural ele<ent and a sensibility so defenceless in the face of beauty that it can -rasp it only nebulouslyF the pre:e<inence of the a6 to-ether 6ith a theolo-ical conception of hu<an innocenceF a pri<iti"e interest in the fairy tale as an enchanted 6orld of -uilt2 and its #hristian rede<ption in the HhistoricalA <iniature of the Nati"ity cribF an interest in historio-raphy alon-side a conception of hu<an life as HfableA : these are so<e of the cate-ories on 6hose antino<ic tension the Italian pheno<enon rests; Thus philolo-y2 beyond the li<its of any narro6 acade<ic conception2 6ill occupy a particular place in this re"ie6; Indeed2 this philolo-y <ust ser"e as the tool of its Hdestruction of destructionA; In our culture2 6hich lac8s specific cate-ories for spiritual trans<ission and exe-esis2 it has al6ays fallen to philolo-y to -uarantee the authenticity and continuity of the cultural tradition; This is 6hy a 8no6led-e of philolo-yAs essence and history should be a precondition of all literary educationF yet this "ery 8no6led-e is hard to find e"en a<onphilolo-ists; Instead2 as far as philolo-y is concerned2 confusion and indifference rei-n; Thus the literary and artistic a"ant: -ardes2 6hich are undoubtedly a for< of philolo-y : as e"en a superficial analysis of their <ethods could easily pro"e : are placed 6ithin the history of art and literature2 6hile to the hu<an and philolo-ical sciences are ascribed studies 6hich are undoubtedly poetic 6or8s; And it re<ains to be adeBuately
&=5

cultures2 Italian culture is a specific case2 in that there is not <erely a ri-idified tradition 6hich <ust be restored to its ori-inal fluidity2 but fro< the start the cultural herita-e 6as ne"er yo8ed to its trans<issionF the Halacha did not find its o6n 5ggada. The <ar-in 6here the re"ie6 6ill place itself2 therefore2 is the ori-inal e"ent2 6hich2 for Italian culture2 has not yet ceased to ta8e place; Nothin- here has reached its end2 because nothinhas yet be-un0 there is no be-innin- because e"erythin- starts fro< the end; As a result2 in this culture all traditions are false2 all authorities are con"inced by liesF but2 Dust as directly2 all
&==

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

@ROEE#T %OR A RE*IE3

in"esti-ated 6hy it 6as 3estern culture that produced philolo-y as a ri-orous scienceF and 6hy2 at e"ery rene6al of this science2 it 6as poets >@hiletas and #alli<achus in the Hellenic period2 @etrarch and @oli!iano durin- early Hu<anis<2 and %riedrich $chle-el in the Ro<antic period? 6ho 6ere i<pelled to beco<e philolo-ists; By not confinin- itself to the <aterial trans<ission of texts2 but clai<in- as specific tas8s the emendatio and the coniectura >correction and conDecture?2 philolo-y re"eals its specific place bet6een Halacha and 5ggada, bet6een truth and trans<ission2 bet6een subDect <atter and truth content; Exa<: ples of illustrious philolo-ists 6ho 6ere falsifiers : usually co"ered up2 6ith an e<barrassed silence2 as aberrant pheno<ena : betray the sin-ular clai< 6hich distin-uishes the essence of philolo-y; The abolition of the <ar-in bet6een the thin- to be trans: <itted and the act of trans<ission2 and bet6een 6ritin- and authority2 has in fact been philolo-yAs role since the "ery be-innin-; And since this abolition has al6ays been re-arded as the essential character of <yth2 philolo-y can thereby be defined as a Hcritical <ytholo-yA; The Hne6 <ytholo-yA : to 6hich $chellin- assi-ned the role of <ediatin- the reunitin- of poetry and science in our ti<e2 and about 6hich he as8ed0 HHo6 could a <ytholo-y be born that 6as not the in"ention of a sin-le poet2 but of a -enerationGA There already exists the ne6 poetry that the <odern poets : fro< Bla8e to Ril8e2 fro< No"alis to 7eats : "ainly tried to create2 and it is a philolo-y a6are of its tas8 >philolo-y here stands for all the critical:philolo-ical disciplines 6hich today are desi-nated2 so<e6hat inappropriately2 Hhu<an
sciencesA?;

Both the H6ide:eyed presentation of <ere factsA and the <a-ical de"otion to detail2 6hich BenDa<in reco-ni!ed as characteri!in- the true philolo-ical attitudeF and the definition of philolo-y as philomythos and fa'ellae studiosus 6hich is encountered in @oli!ianoAs ,amia, that <anifesto of <odern philolo-y2 bear 6itness to this 8inship bet6een critical:philo: lo-ical disciplines and <ytholo-y 6hich <ust be elucidated ane6; Essentially and historically2 philolo-y is an 5ufhe'ung of <ytholo-yF it is al6ays a fa'ulari e re. But the H<ythical ri-idityA of philolo-yAs <aterial <ust be ani<ated by criticis<2 and its obDect <ust be constructed 6ithin a perspecti"e 6hose baselines con"er-e on our o6n historical experience; It is this
&=1 &

Aufhebun- of philolo-y 6hich the re"ie6 proposes to brinabout2 ta8in- a stance 6here2 as Hcritical <ytholo-yA2 it has an exact correspondence 6ith poetry; In accordance 6ith *icoAs definition2 6hich nu<bers Hpoets2 historians2 orators2 -ra<<ar: iansA a<on- philolo-ists2 one of the re"ie6As foundin- principles 6ill be to place critical philolo-ical disciplines on precisely the sa<e plane as poetry; @oetry and philolo-y0 poetry as philolo-y and philolo-y as poetry; Of course it is not a <atter of in"itinpoets to produce 6or8s of philolo-y and philolo-ists to 6rite poetry2 but both -roups should occupy a site 6here the fractur: in- of the 6ord 6hich di"ides poetry and philosophy in 3estern culture beco<es a conscious2 proble<atic experience rather than an e<barrassed repression; 3e ha"e in <ind not only authors such as BenDa<in or @oli!iano2 #alli<achus or *alery : 6ho are so difficult to classify in any precise cate-ory : but also those poets : li8e Dante and the author of the 8ohar, Holderlin and /af8a : 6ho2 in culturally di"erse situations2 <ade of the <ar-in bet6een truth and its trans<ission their central experience; And in the sa<e ter<s2 special attention <ust be reser"ed for translation2 a critical:poetic act par e cellence. Thus can ta8e shape and substance the proDect of an Ainter: disciplinary disciplineA in 6hich all the hu<an sciences con"er-e2 to-ether 6ith poetry2 and 6hose -oal 6ould be that H-eneral science of the hu<anA 6hich is se"erally heralded as the cultural tas8 of the co<in- -eneration; In so far as it is possible2 the re"ie6 sets out to prepare the ad"ent of this as yet unna<ed science 6hich2 in its correspondence 6ith poetry2 <i-ht also be the ne62 critical <ytholo-y as described abo"e >critical in the sense of freed fro< subDection to the po6ers of a6 and Destiny2 and restored to history?; It is i<plicit in an underta8in- of this 8ind that the re"ie6 <ust restore to criticis< its status and its "iolence; It is the pri"ile-e of this status and this "iolence that it is not reBuired to lay bare its o6n connection 6ith politics; The ori-inal cohesion of poetry and politics in our culture 6as sanctioned fro< the "ery start by the fact that AristotleAs treat<ent of <usic is contained in the "olitics, and that @latoAs the<es of poetry and art are to be found in the #epu'lic- it is therefore a <atter beyond dispute; The Buestion is riot so <uch 6hether poetry has any bearin- on politics2 but 6hether politics re<ains eBual to its ori-inal
&=(

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

@ROEE#T %OR A RE*IE3

cohesion 6ith poetry; If criticis< 6ishes to restore politics to its true di<ension2 it <ust first and fore<ost situate itself in antithesis to ideolo-y2 6hich has usurped this cohesion throu-h its dissolution; H%alse consciousnessA2 6hose dar8 clarity e"ery: 6here i<pedes access to the proble<s of our ti<e2 <ust be hurled into the "ery abyss 6hose -apin- 6idth it see8s to preser"e; Also i<plicit in the philolo-ical proDect of the re"ie6 is a re"ision of the concept of history 6hich has do<inated <odern historicis<; The <o<ent has co<e to end the identification of history 6ith a "ul-ar concept of ti<e as a continuous linear and infinite process2 and thereby to ta8e co-ni!ance of the fact that
historical cate-ories and te<poral cate-ories are not necessarily

the sa<e thin-; It is a precondition of the re"ie6As proposed underta8in- to reach a ne6 point in the relationship bet6een ti<e and history : that is2 first and fore<ost2 a ne6 and <ore pri<ary experience of ti<e and history; There <ust be a critical de<olition of the ideas of process2 de"elop<ent2 and pro-ress 6hereby historicis< see8s to reinsert the pseudo:<eanin-s of the #hristian Hhistory of sal"ationA into a history 6hich it has itself reduced to a pure chronolo-y; A-ainst the e<pty2 continuous2 Buantified2 infinite ti<e of "ul-ar historicis< <ust be set the full2 bro8en2 indi"isible and perfect ti<e of concrete hu<an experi: enceF instead of the chronolo-ical ti<e of pseudo:history2 the cairolo-ical ti<e of authentic historyF in place of the total social process of a dialectic lost in ti<e2 the interruption and i<<e: diacy of dialectic at a standstill; The critiBue of historical reason underta8en by Dilthey in the ter<s of a critical foundation for the hu<an sciences <ust be brou-ht to fruition : not in order to abandon history2 but in order to attain a <ore ori-inal concept of it; #ount 7orc8As state<ent0 HModern <an2 that is2 post: Renaissance <an2 is ready for burialA <ust be inte-rated 6ith *aleryAs0 HThe a-e of the 6orldAs end is be-innin-A; Thus the 5ufhe'ung of philolo-y <o"es throu-h a ne6 experience of history2 and the site occupied by the re"ie6 is at one 6ith its

chronolo-y2 can si<ultaneously free <yth fro< its archetypal isolation; 3hat is an Indo:European for< >for exa<ple2 =dei3os, =<ar2, E3egh, Hmed) restored throu-h philolo-ical co<parison of the respecti"e for<s of the historical lan-ua-esG 3hat is a state of the lan-ua-e historically unattested and restored in this 6ay throu-h co<parisonG 3hat is thus "erified is undoubtedly2 as 6ith <yth2 a production of ori-ins2 but these ori-ins are not an archetypal e"ent separated in illo tempore, but are the<sel"es essentially historical; Their HhistoricityA cannot2 ho6e"er2 be construed in an exclusi"ely diachronic sense2 as if it 6ere <erely a <atter of a chronolo-ically earlier sta-e of the lan-ua-e0 as Ha defined syste< of correspondencesA it represents2 instead2 a present and operati"e tendency in the historical lan-ua-es; It is an ori-in2 but an ori-in that is not diachronically pushed bac8 into the pastF rather2 it -uarantees the synchronic coherence of the syste<; In other 6ords2 it expresses so<ethin- 6hich cannot con"eniently be described either in purely diachronic ter<s or in exclusi"ely synchronic ter<s2 but can be concei"ed only as a <ar-in and a difference bet6een diachrony and synchrony; 3e can define this <ar-in as a historical arkhe, to distin-uish it fro< a precise and continuous instant of traditional chronolo-y; The le-iti<acy of a Hsynchronic historicityA of this 8ind is scientifi: ically based : at least fro< the startin- point of Ea8obsonAs "rinciples of Historical "honology, 6hich introduced historicity and teleolo-y into cate-ories supre<ely re-arded as static and synchronic2 openin- the 6ay to a consideration of lan-ua-e that allo6s <ediation bet6een descripti"e lin-uistics and historical lin-uistics; %ro< this point of "ie6 the opposition of structures and history is re"ealed to be inadeBuateF as ar8hai2 the Indo: European for<s are not strictly either structural or historical2 either synchronic or diachronic; Ar-uin- a-ainst structuralist theses2 Du<e!il characteri!ed the obDect of his o6n co<parati"e <ytholo-y0 HMy efforts are not those of a philosopher2 they ai< to be those of a historian0 a historian of the earliest history and the frin-e of ultra:history that can reasonably be reached;A But 6hat is this Hfrin-e of ultra: historyA but an arkhe in the abo"e senseG Because it can certainly ne"er be resol"ed 6holly into e"ents 6hich can be supposed to ha"e ta8en place chronolo-ically2 unless the intention is to le-iti<ate the monstrum of historio-raphical research producin&='

<ethod;

HI$TORI#O:@HI O OGI#A NOTATION


It is not in historio-raphy but in philolo-y that 6e <ust see8 the <odel for a concept of history 6hich2 by its independence fro<
&=)

IN%AN#7 AND HI$TOR7

its o6n ori-inal docu<ents; 3hat is described here as ultrahistory is so<ethin- that has not yet ceased to ta8e place and 6hich2 exactly li8e the syste< of <yth2 -uarantees the intelli-ibility of history and its synchronic coherence; %ro< this point of "ie62 Indo:European H6ordsA are eBui"alent to <ythic na<es0 not causes2 but ori-ins; This is the sense in 6hich philolo-y can be called a Hcritical <ytholo-yA; %or it is philolo-y : albeit standin- in the 6ay of <yth : 6hich can allo6 us to reconstruct an authentic2 therefore free2 relationship 6ith it; %or philolo-y a6a8ens <yth fro< its archetypal ri-idity and its isolation2 returnin- it to history; Its 6or8 of criticis< produces an ori-in freed fro< any ritual character and any subDection to destiny; Its relationship to <yth recalls childhoodAs relationship to the <ythic past of hu<anity; Eust as children2 in -a<es and fairy tales2 preser"e the 6orld of <yth freed fro< its subDection to ritual2 transfor<in- the di"inatory practice into the -a<e of chance2 the soothsayerAs rod into the spinnin- top2 the fertility rite into the circle -a<e2 so philolo-y transfor<s <ythic na<es into 6ords2 si<ultaneously deli"erin- history fro< chronolo-y and <echanis<; 3hat delineated the ti-ht lin-uistic chain of destiny here beco<es the lin-uistic substance of history; #ritical <ytholo-y is the le-acy left by philolo-y2 in the for< of a "ocabulary of Indo:European 6ords2 li8e a ne6 infancy for 3estern culture; It <ust no6 pass into the hands of poetry;

&59

Potrebbero piacerti anche