Radical passivity: Lévinas, Blanchot, and Agamben

RADICAL PASSIVITY Lévinas, Blanchot, and Agamben

Thomas Carl Wall with a Foreword by William Flesch STATE UNIVERSITY OF N E W Y O R K PRESS

Published by State University of N e w York Press

For Steven and

© 1 9 9 9 State University of N e w York

Mikkel All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher. For information, address the State University of N e w York Press, State University Plaza, Albany, NY 1 2 2 4 6 Marketing by Anne Valentine Production by Bernadine Dawes

L i b r a r y of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication D a t a Wall, Thomas Carl, 1 9 5 4 Radical passivity : Lévinas, Blanchot, and Agamben / Thomas Carl Wall : with a foreword by William Flesch. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0 - 7 9 1 4 - 4 0 4 7 - 8 (hardcover), — ISBN 0 - 7 9 1 4 - 4 0 4 8 - 6 (pbk.) 1. Lévinas, Emmanuel. 2. Blanchot, Maurice. 3. Agamben, Giorgio. 1942. I. Title. B2430.L484W35 1999 98-27843 111—DC21 CIP

Al 8
1

TALLINNA ÜLIKOOLI

2

3

\

AKADEEMILINE } K RAAMATUKOGU/ X

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Sbaviro Borcb-Jacobsen

Contents

Foreword

ix

Acknowledgments

xv

Introduction Passivity The

1

Language

of Poetry

10

ONE T h e A l l e g o r y o f Being Image

13

Duality The

17

Obscure

Temporality

The Space of Art The Profane

of the

25

29

TWO Levinas's Ethics An

Ambiguous

No

One

Other

Rapport 34

31

Artwork

22

viii

CONTENTS

The Self

40

Impasse

46

Éthique

50

Death

57

Levinas

and

Heidegger

62

FOREWORD

Love's Characters THREE B l a n c h o t , L'arrêt de mort, a n d t h e I m a g e of L i t e r a t u r e Writing

65

Proximity

77

En d e ç à du t e m p s Image,

65

Ipseity,

93

and Art

106

FOUR

Wallace Stevens, w h o loved M a u r i c e Blanchot, in

A g a m b e n a n d t h e Political N e u t e r Anonymity

and

Whatever!

115 115

Hill calls h i m ) , a few y e a r s earlier: " A t r o p b o n c o m p t e , u n

129

Object = x

a b o u t 1 9 5 5 : " F r e n c h a n d English c o n s t i t u t e a single l a n g u a g e . " B l a n c h o t himself ( o u r o w n " e x t r e m e c o n t e m p o r a r y " a s Leslie

121

Community Politics

Belonging

t e x t e t r a d u i t m i m e l'effort d e c r é a t i o n q u i , à p a r t i r d e l a l a n g u e

138

c o u r a n t e , celle d a n s l a q u e l l e n o u s v i v o n s e t n o u s s o m m e s i m -

155

m e r g é s , c h e r c h e à faire n a î t r e u n e a u t r e l a n g u e , e n a p p a r e n c e la m ê m e et p o u r t a n t , par r a p p o r t à cette langue, c o m m e son

Notes

163

a b s e n c e , s a différence p e r p é t u e l l e m e n t a c q u i s e e t c o n s t a m m e n t

Selected B i b l i o g r a p h y

183

c a c h é e . " S u c h relatively facile t r a n s l a t i o n i s t o o e a s y a p a t h t o

Index

189

s o m e t h i n g t h a t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s n o t easy, t h e w a y t h a t i n t h e literary w o r k t h e w r i t e r will m a k e l a n g u a g e u n d e r g o " l a t r a n s m u t a t i o n q u i d ' u n e seule l a n g u e d o i t e n tirer d e u x , l ' u n e q u i est lue e t c o m p r i s e s a n s d é t o u r , l ' a u t r e q u i reste i g n o r é e , t u e e t i n a c c e s s i b l e e t d o n t l ' a b s e n c e ( l ' o m b r e d o n t p a r l e Tolstoï) est t o u t ce q u e n o u s en s a i s i s s o n s . " It is this w h i c h Stevens is s p e a k ing o f a s w e l l — t h e single l a n g u a g e n a m e a b l e o n l y a s t w o , French a n d English. T h e ease w i t h w h i c h t r a n s l a t i o n c a n yield m o c k - p r o f u n d i t y ix

h a s been .1 hazard Foi English language readers oi Blanchot,

T h e ( flannel 1 >l the familial DC! a use you m a y use t h e sec-

Levinas, a n d Agamben (as h a s perhaps the n a t i v e case- with

o n d p e r s o n familiar w i t h the o n e you love: tutoiement. But

w h i c h French a n d Italian s p e a k e r s m a y read t h e m ) . The stylis-

perhaps one way to characterize Blanchot is to note the ex-

tic infelicity of t h e English l a n g u a g e for t h e i r k i n d of w r i t i n g

t r e m e d e m a n d s he p l a c e s on tutoiement. In his fictions his

h a s n o t i n f r e q u e n t l y t e n d e d t o yield i n t h e i r f o l l o w e r s a k i n d

n a r r a t o r s c o n s i s t e n t l y insist on its rarity. In his l a t e s t essay,

o f e m p t y s l o g a n e e r i n g , a c l a i m t o s o m e k n o w l e d g e different

" P o u r l ' a m i t i é " B l a n c h o t describes the a t m o s p h e r e o f M a y ' 6 8

f r o m t h a t g r e a t eerie c l a r i t y s o e s s e n t i a l t o w h a t t h e y a r e say-

as o n e in w h i c h tutoiement w a s d e m a n d e d of e v e r y o n e . It w a s

ing. (That French is n o t Levinas's native language m a y p u t

only with his friends, a n d n o t with the c o m r a d e s of t h o s e t i m e s ,

h i m in t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e n a r r a t o r in L'Arrêt de mort, r e s p o n -

t h a t B l a n c h o t w o u l d use the formal " v o u s , " sign o f p o l i t e n e s s t o

sive in a l a n g u a g e w h o s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y c a n n o t be a given.)

his friends, b u t m o r e o f his f r i e n d s h i p , w h i c h c o u l d n e v e r use

F o r y e a r s i t h a s s e e m e d t o m e , e v e r s i n c e r e a d i n g Lydia

" t u " o f f h a n d e d l y . A t t h e e n d o f t h e e s s a y B l a n c h o t says t h a t i t

Davis's supple a n d heroic attempts to render Blanchot in En-

i s o n l y L e v i n a s w h o m h e will " t u t o y e r , " h i s f r i e n d s h i p w i t h

glish (in a letter to Steven S h a v i r o B l a n c h o t says of her, " E l l e

L e v i n a s , h i s f r i e n d s h i p w i t h his o t h e r f r i e n d s , a n d his friend-

sait c e q u ' i l e n est d e t r a d u i r e l ' i n t r a d u i s a b l e " ) , t h a t t h e o n l y

s h i p w i t h f r i e n d s h i p d e m a n d i n g this d i s t i n c t i v e , i m p e r s o n a l ,

w a y for a n E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e r e a d e r t o r e a d B l a n c h o t h a s b e e n

u n f a m i l i a r , a n d u n c a n n y f o r m a l i t y w i t h f a m i l i a r i t y itself.

w i t h i n t h a t single l a n g u a g e S t e v e n s d e s c r i b e s . T h e E n g l i s h w e

F r e u d calls t h e u n c a n n y t h e r e t u r n o f t h e f a m i l i a r a n d sees

s p e a k e v e r y d a y h a d s e e m e d t o o q u i r k y for B l a n c h o t . J . L .

t h e fact o f r e t u r n itself a s w h a t m a k e s i t u n c a n n y . F o r B l a n c h o t

A u s t i n s u g g e s t s t h a t w e ' l l get s o m e w h e r e i n a e s t h e t i c s w h e n

i t w o u l d b e t h e alien f o r m a l i t y a t t h e h e a r t o f t h e familiar, a n d

w e s t o p t r y i n g t o figure o u t t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e b e a u t i f u l a n d

i n d e e d a t t h e h e a r t o f t h a t m o s t f a m i l i a r o f all t h i n g s , l a n -

start looking to describe "the dainty a n d the d u m p y " instead,

guage, which is uncanny. Familiar: Blanchot's narrators are

a n d it has been the fundamentally comic genius of English as

u n c o m m o n l y e b u l l i e n t , light a t h e a r t , gay. U n c a n n y : t h a t g a i -

a l i t e r a r y l a n g u a g e (even t h e E n g l i s h of S t e v e n s ) , to m a r s h a l

ety itself is u n c a n n y in B l a n c h o t , m a r k of t h e p r o x i m i t y of a

such categories of experience.

r a d i c a l u n c o n c e r n w i t h any w o r l d , c o n c e r n itself a p r e s e n c e

W e w o u l d b e t e m p t e d t o call this familiar e x p e r i e n c e , H u m e

t h a t is p u t by.

at billiards, Austen in Bath, Trollope at a h u n t , experience

T h i s u n c a n n y familiarity, this g r a v e g a i e t y i s t h e o p p o s i t e

w h o s e description might be " r e a d a n d u n d e r s t o o d directly."

of Freud's n o t i o n of the u n c a n n y as the r e t u r n of the familiar:

B l a n c h o t ' s clarities seem s o m e t h i n g else, r e s t r a i n e d w i t h o u t

i t is, t o use Blanchot's i m p o r t a n t o b s e r v a t i o n a b o u t N i e t z s c h e ,

r e t i c e n c e , a u s t e r e w i t h o u t h a u g h t i n e s s , careful w i t h o u t a n x i -

t h e e t e r n a l r e t u r n ("Je c h e r c h a i , c e t t e fois, á P a b o r d e r " b e g i n s

ety, f a s c i n a t e d w i t h o u t c a t h e x i s , i m p e r s o n a l w i t h o u t c o l d n e s s .

Celui

In B l a n c h o t t h e n a m e of s u c h a s t a t e is l o v e , a w o r d u s e d v e r y

tion, of t h o u g h t as re-flecting on t h e i n t e r m i n a b l e , i m p e r s o n a l ,

r a r e l y i n his w o r k , a n d o n l y w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t diffidence. A n d

u n p r e c e d e n t e d experience o f w h a t h a p p e n s t o t h o u g h t ) , b u t n o t

y e t w h a t s t a t e i s m o r e f a m i l i a r t h a n love? F a m i l i a r t o u s a n d

t h e eternal r e t u r n of the s a m e , n o r of t h e a l r e a d y e x p e r i e n c e d ,

t h e c h a n n e l o f t h e familiar?

n o r of a w o r l d t h a t has been lost b u t is n o w resuscitated, simply

qui

ne

m'accompagnait pas,

a

story

of e n d l e s s

reflec-

A I I

rwn

B

w wnw

the p u r e "appearance *»f Again, the diva dame" ( S t e v e n s ) .

T h e i r love i8 an affair <>l p l a c e . , but (he m a r r i a g e p l a c e , t h e

F r e u d s a w every e r o t u

relation as Caking place b e t w e e n at

place they love, or the p l a c e they live a n d t h a t S t e v e n s loves is

least f o u r p e o p l e : the lovers a n d t h e i r p a r e n t s . But in B l a n c h o t

literary s p a c e : " F r o m this the poem s p r i n g s , t h a t we live in a

true erotic relation is u n c o u n t a b l e a n d takes place w i t h o u t

place / That is not o u r o w n , a n d m u c h m o r e , n o t o u r s e l v e s , /

t h o s e p a r e n t s w h o a r e for F r e u d t h e o n l y o n e s w h o c o u n t .

A n d h a r d it is in s p i t e of b l a z o n e d d a y s . " In t h e p r e f a t o r y

T h e r e i s t h e lover, o r n a r r a t o r , o r ( u s u a l l y a n d b y a n e x t r e m e

verse t o " N o t e s " S t e v e n s a s k s ,

c o n v e n t i o n t h a t signifies t h e i n t e n s e refusal o f t h e d e p t h o f d e p t h p s y c h o l o g y ) m a l e figure, a n d a n u t t e r l y u n p r e c e d e n t e d

A n d for w h a t , e x c e p t for y o u , do I feel love?

other: unprecedented and so beyond the universal precedent

Do I press the extremest book of the wisest m a n

o f t h e dialectic o f p r e s e n c e a n d a b s e n c e .

Close to m e , hidden in me day a n d night?

F o r L e v i n a s s u c h a r e l a t i o n to t h e o t h e r , to autrui, is t h e

In t h e u n c e r t a i n light of single, c e r t a i n t r u t h ,

h y p e r c a t e g o r i c a l i m p e r a t i v e t o e t h i c s ; for A g a m b e n i t i s t h e

E q u a l i n living c h a n g i n g n e s s t o t h e l i g h t

future of t h e c o m i n g c o m m u n i t y , free to be u n p r e c e d e n t e d , qual-

In w h i c h I m e e t y o u , in w h i c h we sit at r e s t

unque, u n c h a r a c t e r i z e d a n d i n B l a n c h o t ' s t e r m s i m p e r s o n a l .

For a m o m e n t , in the central of o u r being,

F o r B l a n c h o t , a s for S t e v e n s , i t i s t h e r e g i o n h a u n t e d b y l o v e .

T h e vivid t r a n s p a r e n c e t h a t y o u b r i n g i s p e a c e .

I cite Stevens b e c a u s e I myself w i s h to reflect on t h e p o s s i bility o f a n A m e r i c a n c o n t e x t for B l a n c h o t i a n t h o u g h t , t h e

W h o m is this addressed to? W h a t is the light in w h i c h they

c o n t e x t for w h i c h (in t h e first i n s t a n c e ) Wall offers t h i s e x -

m e e t — t h e light n o t of t r u t h , b u t a n o t h e r light w i t h a n o t h e r

t r a o r d i n a r y b o o k . Love is a v e r y r a r e w o r d in S t e v e n s as w e l l ,

c l a r i t y ? ( " R o b i n s a n d d o v e s a r e b o t h e a r l y risers a n d a r e c o n -

b u t it is, as I say, a w o r d t h a t he a p p l i e s to B l a n c h o t , in a letter

noisseurs of d a y l i g h t before t h e a c t u a l p r e s e n c e of t h e s u n c o a r s -

j u s t f o u r m o n t h s b e f o r e his d e a t h . In g e n e r a l it is a w o r d t h a t

e n s i t " says S t e v e n s in a letter.) T h e s e lines a r e a tutoiement,

h e a p p l i e s n o t t o p e o p l e b u t t o p l a c e s ("Life i s a n affair o f

a n d it's n o t t h a t w e c a n n o t k n o w w h o m t h e y ' r e a d d r e s s e d t o ,

p e o p l e , n o t o f p l a c e s . B u t for m e life h a s b e e n a n affair o f

it's t h a t t h e r e i s n o k n o w i n g , t h e a d d r e s s e e d o e s n o t b e l o n g t o

p l a c e s , a n d t h a t h a s m a d e all t h e d i f f e r e n c e " ) , a s i n " N o t e s

the w o r l d of k n o w l e d g e . T h e scholar writes the b o o k , Stevens

Towards a Supreme Fiction," where

will say, h o t for a n accessible bliss, b u t t h e bliss t h e w o r k offers c a n n e v e r b e a c c e s s i b l e , c a n n e v e r b e p r e s e n t .

T h e C a p t a i n l o v e d t h e ever-hill C a t a w b a ,

I t i s t h e l i t e r a r y w o r k t h a t gives u s t h e m o s t i n e l u c t a b l e

A n d therefore married B a w d a w h o m he found there,

model of w h a t it is t h a t there is no k n o w i n g . You c a n love a

A n d B a w d a l o v e d t h e c a p t a i n a s she l o v e d t h e s u n .

w o r k , b u t y o u c a n n e v e r k n o w it, e v e n i f y o u l o v e it, e s p e cially if y o u love it, a n d t h i s is a l e s s o n n o t a b o u t t h e w o r k

T h e y m a r r i e d well because the marriage-place W a s w h a t t h e y l o v e d . I t w a s n e i t h e r h e a v e n n o r hell. T h e y w e r e love's c h a r a c t e r s c o m e face t o face.

(about w h i c h there is no learning) b u t a b o u t love. F o r F r e u d t o love t h e l i t e r a r y w o r k (since i t i s t h e w o r k t h a t S t e v e n s a d d r e s s e s his d e d i c a t i o n to) i s t o b e e n g a g e d i n

transferential fantasy, i<> love what nil', sut h fantasy. But for L e v i n a s , Blanchot, a n d Agamben, as loi Prousl a n d Stevens b e fore t h e m , love o f a n o t h e r can o n l y b e i n t i m a t e d t h r o u g h t h e s t r a n g e a n d elusive a n d a l w a y s lost love o f l i t e r a t u r e . S t e v e n s : " I n p o e t r y y o u m u s t love t h e w o r d s , t h e i d e a s a n d i m a g e s a n d

Acknowledgments

r h y t h m s w i t h all y o u r c a p a c i t y t o love a n y t h i n g a t a l l . " T h e r e l a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r t h a t love n a m e s , a n d t h a t B l a n c h o t e x p l o r e s in all his fiction, c u l m i n a t i n g in L'attente l'oubli, is o n e o f r a d i c a l passivity, i n t e r m i n a b l e a t t e n t i o n , t h e m o s t f o r m a l a n d d e m a n d i n g m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e s e v e r e s t familiarity. L o v e ' s characters are, m a k e u p , literature. It is only in this strange language, the other language, the language of literature, that l o v e c a n b e u t t e r e d (as t h e p a r a b l e a b o u t t h e n a r r a t o r ' s a d d r e s s i n g C l a u d i a in h e r n a t i v e l a n g u a g e in L'Arrêt de mort also m a k e s clear). This love is w h a t Wall utters in this r e m a r k a b l e b o o k . He too k n o w s w h a t it is to translate the untranslatable and he has f o u n d a g r a v i t y o f style a n s w e r i n g t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e o t h e r n e s s of the language he attends to. He will, I imagine, defamiliarize—or ( w h a t is the s a m e thing) render uncannily familiar— t h e s e w o r k s for F r e n c h a n d I t a l i a n s p e a k e r s w h o will find t h e t r a n s m u t a t i o n B l a n c h o t s p e a k s of: h e will r e n d e r t h e i r l a n guage plural as he renders English plural, able at last to transl a t e t h e s e figures in a n s w e r a b l e style, p r e s e r v i n g all t h e i r alterity a n d giving b a c k to English, as Stevens also h a d d o n e , a sense o f its o w n alterity, a p l a c e f r o m w h i c h t h e p o e m m a y c o n t i n u e

T h e a u t h o r w i s h e s t o e x p r e s s his g r a t i t u d e t o a n u m b e r o f friends w h o m h e e n l i s t e d for m u c h - n e e d e d h e l p . The f o l l o w i n g p e o p l e h a v e left t h e i r m a r k s o n t h i s b o o k : Susie Brubaker, Stephen D u c a , Stephen Wall, M a g e n t a Widner, Kate G a r d n e r , K a r l D u d i c k , a n d t h e staff of t h e l e g e n d a r y Left Bank Books in S e a t t l e , W a s h i n g t o n . T h e a u t h o r w o u l d also like t o t h a n k D o u g l a s Brick, Camillo Penna, Robert Thomas, Jean-Luc Nancy, and Giorgio A g a m b e n , w h o r e a d t h e m a n u s c r i p t a n d offered critical a n d encouraging comments. W i t h affection a n d r e s p e c t , t h e a u t h o r w i s h e s t o a c k n o w l edge his teachers.

to spring.

A m o n g them are M i k e Wing, Jane Green,

R a n d y Fezel, C h a r l i e A l t i e r i , C a r l D e n n i s , a n d E v a n W a t k i n s . WILLIAM FLESCH BRANDÉIS UNIVERSITY

XV

Introduction

Passivity T h e w r i t e r s w e will e x a m i n e h e r e s h a r e a c e r t a i n p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h a p o i n t o f r a d i c a l p a s s i v i t y t h a t affects s u b j e c t i v i t y p r i o r t o a n y m e m o r y . Passive w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e image (Maurice Blanchot), the O t h e r (Emmanuel Lévinas), a n d being-in-language (Giorgio A g a m b e n ) , each writer c a n n o t resist t u r n i n g r o u n d a n d r o u n d t h e p a r a d o x — o r t h e i n v e r t e d e s s e n c e — o f t h i s passivity. N a m e l y : p a s s i v i t y i n t h e r a d i c a l s e n s e , b e f o r e it is s i m p l y o p p o s e d to activity, is p a s s i v e w i t h r e g a r d t o itself, a n d t h u s i t s u b m i t s t o itself a s t h o u g h i t w e r e an exterior power. H e n c e , radical passivity conceals, or harb o r s in itself, or c o m m u n i c a t e s w i t h , a potentia; it is a l w a y s o u t s i d e itself a n d i s its o w n o t h e r . Passive w i t h r e g a r d t o itself, t h e e s s e n t i a l p a s s i v i t y of t h e s u b j e c t m u s t u n d e r g o itself, suffer itself, feel itself as other. In t h i s s e n s e , p a s s i v i t y is p u r e l y passionate. O l d e r t h a n a n y ( a c t u a l ) p o s s i b i l i t y is this potentia-in-general t h a t " g i v e s " n o t h i n g ( e x c e p t itself) a n d t h a t " i s g i v e n " 1

2

INTRODUCTION

IN I R.ODUCTION

3

p r i o r to a n y real state of affairs. A l w a y s older t h a n a n y activity,

i n e x h a u s t i b l e , u n c o n t r o l l a b l e , a n d u n c a n n y passion I must be.

t h i s r a d i c a l passivity " g i v e s " its o w n w i t h d r a w a l , t h e r e f o r e . I t

W h e n t h e r e i s n o t h i n g , w e a r e t r y i n g t o say, t h e r e i s a l r e a d y

is and is not t h e subject. M o r e i n t i m a t e t h a n a n y p e r c e p t i o n ,

n o l o n g e r n o t h i n g . N i h i l i s m i s n o t t h e f i n a l r e s t i n g p l a c e for

e x p e r i e n c e , o r feeling, r a d i c a l passivity " g i v e s " n o n p r e s e n c e ,

h u m a n being. With nihilism's global completion in t h e form

inequality-in-itselfness:

of de-

of t h e spectacle, A g a m b e n a r g u e s specifically, t h e r e is still s o m e -

struction. T h i s p a r a d o x w o u l d r e m a i n a m e r e l y f r u s t r a t i n g

thing to be destroyed with a nonconservative destruction that

f o r m a l i t y w e r e it n o t for t h e fact t h a t existence is t h e n a m e for

will a l t e r e v e r y t h i n g w h i l e c h a n g i n g n o t a t h i n g . If y o u like,

this p a s s i v i t y t h a t suffers itself o u t s i d e itself. P r i o r t o a n y given

we (but this " w e " does n o t n a m e us—it is the not-yet w h o we

b e i n g , in s h o r t , is t h e e x i s t e n c e t h a t d e s t r o y s itself as a p r e s -

still m u s t be) m u s t d e s t r o y i n a r a d i c a l m o v e m e n t t h a t leaves

e n c e w i t h a d e s t r u c t i o n t h a t leaves e v e r y t h i n g i n t a c t . It is a

n o t h i n g t o b e r e s t o r e d , n o t h i n g t o b e r e d e e m e d . W e m u s t seize

v e r y d e s t r u c t i v e d e s t r u c t i o n — o n e t h a t c a n n o t c o n s e r v e itself

d e s t r u c t i o n a s obsessively a s p a s s i v i t y d e s t r o y s , b y failing t o

in order to destroy; one that c a n n o t but incessantly destroy

complete the w o r k of destruction.

i.e.,

the

incalculable

specificity

itself. I f y o u like, this p a r a d o x d e s c r i b e s t h e " p r o d u c t i o n " o f

E a c h o f t h e w r i t e r s w e shall d i s c u s s i n w h a t f o l l o w s r e -

nothing, or the " p r o d u c t i o n " of an absolute past or an ex-

t u r n s obsessively to the p a r a d o x we have described (some-

t r e m e y o u t h t h a t t h e s u b j e c t never has been. T h a t is to say,

w h a t t o o r a p i d l y , n o d o u b t ) a s r a d i c a l passivity. T h e y h a v e

r a d i c a l passivity p r o d u c e s t h e i m a g i n a r y , p r o d u c e s s o m e t h i n g

radicalized their particular disciplines to the p o i n t w h e r e we

like fiction, s o m e t h i n g t h a t r e m a i n s o n l y possibly intelligible.

c a n n o l o n g e r a s s o c i a t e w h a t t h e y say w i t h a n y t h i n g like w h a t

W e h a v e l e a r n e d f r o m H e i d e g g e r t h a t e x i s t e n c e i s possi-

w o u l d c o m m o n l y fall u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g s " e t h i c s , " " a e s t h e t -

bility in general a n d t h e r e f o r e it is u n r e a l i z a b l e in p a r t i c u l a r ,

i c s , " o r " p o l i t i c s . " F o r e a c h , t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s a r e a l w a y s al-

or it is i m p o s s i b l e in p a r t i c u l a r . E x i s t e n c e as t h e g e n e r a l i t y of

r e a d y t h e t r a c e of a general or a potential r e l a t i o n t h a t a n y

t h e p o s s i b l e i s precisely t h e i m p o s s i b l e : t h e u n c a n n y i m p o s s i -

p a r t i c u l a r discipline o n l y r e s t r i c t s . T h u s e a c h s p e a k s a l a n -

bility of Da-sein—the b e i n g I myself am at my o w n m o s t . T h a t

g u a g e at o n c e f a m i l i a r a n d a l i e n a t i n g . Each says very little, if

is to say, b e f o r e I t a k e on t h e p a r t i c u l a r i t y of a p e r s o n , I a m —

w e m e a n b y t h i s t h a t e a c h fails t o p r o d u c e a c o r p u s o f t h o u g h t

a n d a m n o t — a n e x t r e m e possibility. T o say i t e v e n better, I a m

we m a y debate a m o n g s t ourselves. There are no pros a n d cons

a potential p o s s i b i l i t y : t h e null e v e n t of an i n a c t u a l i t y . B u t

w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e w o r k s w e shall d i s c u s s . T h e r e w i l l h a v e

w h a t exposes t h i s potentia I a m a t m y o w n m o s t ? W h a t e x -

been, however, the repeated exposure to impossibility t h a t we

poses

may take to be an irreducible experience of an intimacy empty

Da-sein}

Blanchot, Levinas, and A g a m b e n provide answers, each

of itself, a n d as fragile as it is r e p e t i t i v e .

of which says the same thing: W h e n there is n o t h i n g (when

I n o u r f i r s t c h a p t e r w e will f o l l o w L e v i n a s ' s a n a l y s i s o f t h e

there is fascination with the image, w h e n the other is rendered

a r t w o r k a s t h a t w h o s e ( e n i g m a t i c ) b e i n g i s precisely its iner-

a n o n y m o u s a n d b e c o m e s O t h e r , w h e n l a n g u a g e itself s p e a k s ) ,

tia, o r its inability t o e n t e r t h e r o b u s t p r e s e n t . W e will t h e n

t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f this n o t h i n g d e s t r o y s itself a s a n e x p e r i e n c e

a r g u e that t h e w e a k n e s s o r i m p o t e n c e " e x h i b i t e d " i n t h e a r t -

a n d e x p o s e s a passivity t h a t in fact c o m m a n d s a r e t u r n to t h e

w o r k opens, not a w o r l d , b u t a general e t h i c s a n d p o l i t i c s .

I he a r t w o r k "lets g o " of the object a n d t h u s interrupts the

is i ommunii a t e d . W h e n someone gestures to me, for e x a m p l e ,

w o r k of subjectivity. T h e w o r k ol art is purely and s i m p l y an

h o w do 1 k n o w thai t h e r e is an a t t e m p t to c o m m u n i c a t e e v e n

i m a g e , a n d a n i m a g e e l u d e s all a t t e m p t s t o g r a s p it.

il the p e r s o n s p e a k s a foreign t o n g u e ? A m u t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n

I n o u r s e c o n d c h a p t e r , w e will a r g u e t h a t Levinas's e t h i c s

p r e c e d e s a n y dit (said). This c o m m u n i c a t i o n is u n s p o k e n b u t

is i m a g i n a r y . T h a t is, like an i m a g e , Autrui will a l w a y s h a v e

i r r e d u c i b l e . It is an i m a g e of c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h a t p r e c e d e s a n y

r e m a i n e d u n a v a i l a b l e t o a n y p r e s e n t a n d , like a fissure i n b e -

m e s s a g e . L a n g u a g e t h a t precedes.itself, o r t h a t " b e g i n s " i n

i n g , will p r o v o k e a n infinite r a p p o r t t h a t will o v e r w h e l m t h e

repetition, is poetry, a n d this preemptive " s p e a k i n g " belongs

s u b j e c t in a flood of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . ( T h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , h o w -

t o n o s u b j e c t i v e i n t e n t i o n t o say a n y t h i n g . O l d e r t h a n t h e s u b -

ever, like j e a l o u s y i n P r o u s t , will n o l o n g e r r e s e m b l e w h a t i s

ject, i t i s a l a n g u a g e s p o k e n b y n o o n e , o r b y a n a n o n y m o u s

c o m m o n l y m e a n t by the term.) Levinas w o u l d p r o b a b l y dis-

" s o m e o n e " ( B l a n c h o t ' s il, " h e , " t h e N e u t e r ) , w h o c a n n o t s p e a k

a g r e e w i t h o u r r e a d i n g since w e will c l a i m t h a t t h a t w h i c h

i n t h e first p e r s o n . U n a b l e n o t t o c o m m u n i c a t e , t h i s a n o n y m -

i n c e s s a n t l y e s c a p e s — A u t r u i — i s an a l t e r i t y t h a t t h e moi itself

ity c a n n o t c e a s e " h i s " s a y i n g just a s i t i s u n a b l e t o m a n i f e s t

is. We will a r g u e t h a t t h e g e r m of L e v i n a s ' s Autrement qu'être

" h i m s e l f " i n a n y s t a t e m e n t , for " h e " i s o n l y i n s o f a r a s , a n d

ou

identifica-

for a s l o n g a s , " h e " s p e a k s . C o i n c i d i n g s o perfectly w i t h " h i m -

t i o n o f t h e self w i t h t h e O t h e r t h a t e v a c u a t e s t h e self o f

self," " h e " j u s t a s perfectly e s c a p e s " h i m s e l f " o r i s o u t s i d e

au-delà

de

l'essence—substitution—is

a

radical

s a m e n e s s , stability, a n d self-certainty. I n b e c o m i n g r e s p o n s i b l e

" h i m s e l f . " " H e " (or " S o m e o n e , " for i t i s a l w a y s a n o t h e r ) i s

f o r - t h e - O t h e r , t h e self e n c o u n t e r s a n i n c e s s a n c e t h a t r e s e m b l e s

perfectly i n l a n g u a g e . U n a b l e t o t u r n a r o u n d a n d g r a s p h i m -

Blanchotian dying and Agamben's capacity to " n o t not-be."

self in a reflection w i t h o u t l o s i n g himself a g a i n , t h i s " S o m e -

It becomes an image, in s h o r t , b u t no l o n g e r an i m a g e of itself.

o n e ' s " o n l y b e i n g is t h a t r e p e t i t i v e L e v i n a s i a n dire (saying)

It becomes an image of nothing, of no one. It becomes the

t h a t u n s a y s itself. I t i s o u r t h e s i s i n this c h a p t e r t h a t t h e B l a n -

a n o n y m i t y t h a t , i n fact, Autrui a l r e a d y is. H e n c e t h e p a r a d o x

c h o t i a n w r i t e r i s t h e o n e w h o i s " c a p a b l e " o f this i n a b i l i t y t o

of an identification with no o n e t h a t is the thesis of o u r second

c e a s e t o s p e a k . R e f u s i n g all self-presence, t h i s a n o n y m i t y n e v -

chapter.

e r t h e l e s s i s a h o l l o w i n g o u t t h a t m a k e s p o s s i b l e all p r e s e n c e ,

In our third chapter, we examine Blanchot's notion of an imaginary that precedes the real, precedes the object. In part i c u l a r , w e will b e a t t e n t i v e t o a n i m a g i n a r y l a n g u a g e o r a n i n c e s s a n t m u r m u r t h a t m u s t b e silenced i n o r d e r for t h e w o r d

all w o r k , a n d all t h i n k i n g . " S o m e o n e , " i n s h o r t , i s l a n g u a g e itself. " S o m e o n e ' s " b e i n g i s s o u t t e r l y a b s o r b e d i n l a n g u a g e w i t h o u t a n y r e s i d u e t h a t t h e r e i s n o l o n g e r a n y o n e left t o s a v e or manifest.

to " w o r k . " This m u r m u r is poetic language: language that

In this way, t h r o u g h Blanchot, we come to Agamben's

has become an image of language, an image of negation.

n o t i o n of a c o m m u n i t y - t o - c o m e t h a t is already " i n " language

" O l d e r " t h a n the Hegelian negative is a simulated language

a n d t h a t i s n o l o n g e r g r a s p a b l e a s sacrificed, r e c o g n i z e d , a n d

that poetry cannot but speak. T h a t which poetry each time

identified. C e n t r a l t o A g a m b e n ' s r e c e n t w o r k i s t h e n o t i o n o f

s a y s will b e n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n t h e e m p t y t o t a l i t y o f l a n g u a g e

c o m p l e t e b e i n g - i n - l a n g u a g e w i t h o u t a n y r e s i d u e . W e believe

itself. Before a n y t h i n g is c o m m u n i c a t e d , c o m m u n i c a t i o n itself

t h e r e f o r e t h a t his w o r k unfolds f r o m B l a n c h o t ' s la communauté

inavouable, although Agamben seems to wani i<> deny t i n s , in

themselves.) Foi each oi them, Striving to say the u n s a y a b l e ,

Agamben's terms, the Bianchotian writer would be s o m e o n e

w r i t i n g is a c o m m u n i c a t i o n thai interrupts itself a n d c o m e s

w h o c a n n o t n o t s p e a k a n d w h o has b e c o m e c a p a b l e o f this

back to itself in a s u s p e n s i o n that will p r e c e d e n o t h i n g a n d

i m p o t e n c e (like a literary G l e n n G o u l d , t o use A g a m b e n ' s o w n

t h u s refuse the p r e s e n t .

e x a m p l e ) . B l a n c h o t (or " B l a n c h o t " ) i s c o m p l e t e l y a b s o r b e d i n

n o t m e r e l y a t h e o r e t i c a l nicety. It is t h e very w n p o w e r of t h e

l a n g u a g e , is an i m a g e of himself, b u t as he is c o m p l e t e l y a b -

l a n g u a g e of p o e t r y . R a d i c a l s u s p e n s i o n o p e n s us to a h o l l o w

The n o t i o n of r a d i c a l s u s p e n s i o n is

sorbed in language, he is outside himself a n d is thus an image

interval of nonsalvageable time t h a t is b o t h w i t h o u t continu-

o f n o o n e . " B l a n c h o t " i s t h e n a m e o f a n infinite d i s p e r s i o n :

a t i o n a n d a l s o w i t h o u t c e s s a t i o n . I t will h a v e b e e n a t i m e t h a t

l a n g u a g e itself as a p u r e potentia, or as t h e e m p t i n e s s or p u r e

departs from the robust time of geometric chronology.

exteriority t h a t is not a " b e y o n d " but instead an eternal re-

We bring together and overlap three thinkers here to the

t u r n to a never-having-been or an extreme youth. A g a m b e n

e x t e n t t h a t e a c h a r t i c u l a t e s a n e x t r e m e passivity, e x p r o p r i a -

suggests t h a t o u r e r a — t h e era of the image, of the spectacle,

t i o n , d e - n u c l e a t i o n , or n e u t r a l i t y t h a t is p a r a d o x i c a l l y consti-

of t h e e v a c u a t i o n of all beliefs a n d p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s , i n d e e d , of

tutive of t h e self, t h e i m a g e , or t h e c o m m u n i t y . To be s u r e ,

t h e R e a l itself—offers us this r e t u r n to a n e v e r - h a v i n g - b e e n as

other thinkers have devoted themselves to various versions of

a n e t e r n a l last h o p e . T h e e s s e n c e o f t h e S p e c t a c l e (like t h e

r a d i c a l passivity. G e o r g e s Bataille, Gilles D e l e u z e , Luce Irigaray,

l o g i c o f t h e i m a g e w e e x a m i n e i n o u r first c h a p t e r ) i s t o s u b -

Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, and Jean-Luc N a n c y are a m o n g

t r a c t o r e v e n insist o n t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e o b j e c t , a n d t h u s i m -

those w h o have fashioned their o w n versions of the enigma.

mediately to depart from simple representation. To be sure,

Beyond these m o r e recent thinkers there are, of course, Heideg-

w e c a n still seek i n t h e i m a g e for t h a t o f w h i c h w e a r e c h e a t e d

ger's t h i n k i n g o f f i n i t u d e , N i e t z s c h e ' s t h o u g h t o f t h e E t e r n a l

(as m a n y o f m y s t u d e n t s often t r y t o find i n p r o f e s s i o n a l w r e s -

R e t u r n , a n d even, in a certain sense, Kant's c o n c e p t i o n of the

tling s o m e of the reality of G r e c o - R o m a n wrestling so t h a t

T r a n s c e n d e n t a l I m a g i n a t i o n (as w e shall e x a m i n e i n o u r c h a p t e r

they can m a k e of Hulk H o g a n the degraded image of an Olym-

o n A g a m b e n ) . N o d o u b t w e a r e f o r g e t t i n g still o t h e r s , b u t this

p i c c h a m p i o n ) , b u t w e c a n a l s o cease t o d o t h i s . W e c a n let t h e

o n l y a t t e s t s t o t h e fact t h a t t h e r e c a n b e n o h i s t o r i c i z i n g o f

p r e s t i g e of t h a t w h i c h is r e p r e s e n t e d (the m o d e l ) d i s s o l v e in

w h a t is precisely a p o i n t of d i s p e r s i o n : t h e s i n g u l a r i t y of an

the image.

e n i g m a t h a t " s a v e s " multiplicity s u c h t h a t even t h e t e r m " e n i g -

Any c o m m e n t a r y on the writings of Levinas, Blanchot,

m a " (which w e b o r r o w from Levinas) m u s t b e s u b m i t t e d t o

a n d A g a m b e n will b e difficult, b e c a u s e e a c h w r i t e s i n s u c h a

its d i s p l a c e m e n t in a series of o t h e r t e r m s s u c h as dissemina-

w a y that our p o w e r to read is neutralized and dispersed. Each

tion,

of these thinkers writes in such a w a y t h a t c o m m u n i c a t i o n is

are as well k n o w n . H e n c e the restlessness, imposition, super-

interrupted, a n d any formal presentation of their t h o u g h t , such

i m p o s i t i o n , d i s p a r i t y , c o n t e s t a t i o n , conflict, a n d o b l i q u e n e s s

a s o u r s h e r e , i s ceaselessly p o s t p o n e d . T o p u t i t m o s t b l u n t l y ,

t h a t ( d e ) c o n s t i t u t e s this p o p u l a t i o n o f t h i n k e r s . " P h i l o s o p h y

t h e y r e p e a t t h e m s e l v e s endlessly. ( T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e o f

is philosophers in an intersubjective 'intrigue' t h a t n o b o d y

L e v i n a s a n d B l a n c h o t , w h o r e p e a t each other a s w e l l a s e c h o

r e s o l v e s , w h i l e n o b o d y is a l l o w e d a l a p s e of a t t e n t i o n or a

desistance,

differance, point d'autrui,

a n d still o t h e r s t h a t

lack <>l rigor,"' Levinas tells us. In this s e n s e , each <>| these

the expei ien< e ol finitude, ol pHtnordictl t e m p o r a l i t y , is, as we

t h i n k e r ' s d i s c o u r s e s is an " e a c h time" ol the e n i g m a itself since

k n o w from Heidegger, rigorously u n r e a c h a b l e . We are pre-

t h e e n i g m a of d e - n u c l e a t i o n is t h e very t a k i n g - p l a c e of c o m -

< isely not equal t o i t . It is the passion of the O u t s i d e , as B l a n c h o t

m u n i c a t i v i t y itself, a s w e w a n t t o s h o w . A l w a y s t h e " s a m e "

might say. But the O u t s i d e is n o t t h e B e y o n d a n d s o , simplify-

enigma, communicativity is only as trace or iteration w i t h o u t

ing t h i n g s , w e will say t h a t w e a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n L e v i n a s t o t h e

identity. T h i s p o p u l a t i o n o f t h i n k e r s t h e n , f r o m w h i c h w e h a v e

e x t e n t t h a t h e fails t o r e v e a l o r i n s t i t u t e a n e t h i c a l B e y o n d ; w e

plucked three, is a c o m m u n i t y w i t h o u t commonality, w i t h o u t

are interested in Blanchot to the extent that he involves us in

substance or essence.

this i n c e s s a n t l i m i t i n g t h a t is t h e v e r y p a s s i o n of t h e ( n o t ) Be-

I f w e focus o n t h e s e t h r e e t h i n k e r s i n p a r t i c u l a r , i t i s n o t t o

y o n d (le pas au-delà); a n d we a r e i n t e r e s t e d in A g a m b e n i n s o -

f o c u s o n a n y p a r t i c u l a r e t h i c s , l i t e r a t u r e , o r p o l i t i c s , b u t in-

far a s h e m a k e s o f this a m b i g u o u s limit a n i n e s c a p a b l e a n d

stead to approach that which in each text touches on any eth-

unexcludable "belonging." M o r e narrowly, we are interested

ics, l i t e r a t u r e , o r politics w h a t e v e r , a n d w h i c h e a c h w r i t e r e x -

i n a B l a n c h o t i a n " e l e m e n t a l d e p t h " t h a t p r e c e d e s access t o

poses in diverse w a y s . We could, p e r h a p s , have written exclu-

a n y a c c o m p l i s h m e n t . T h a t i s t o say, w e a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n a n

sively on Heidegger, or H e i d e g g e r w i t h K a n t (of t h e Kantbuch),

a n t e r i o r i t y t h a t i n f o r m s t h e Levinasian éthique, t h e B l a n c h o t i a n

o r N i e t z s c h e ( w i t h a n d a g a i n s t H e i d e g g e r ) , since t h i s p o p u l a -

littéraire,

and

the

Agambenian

Quodlibet ens.

t i o n ( m o r e o r less) s c h e m a t i z e s t h e a b y s s w e t o d a y i n h e r i t a n d

Beginning with Levinas's 1 9 4 8 essay "Réalité et son

experience constantly in o u r thinking. Instead, we confine

o m b r e , " w e p r o c e e d t o s h o w h o w a s p e c t s o f t h a t a n a l y s i s in-

o u r s e l v e s t o t h i n k e r s w h o confine t h e m s e l v e s t o p r o b l e m s t r a -

f o r m b o t h his o w n n o t i o n o f a r a p p o r t w i t h t h e O t h e r t h a t

d i t i o n a l l y " s e c o n d a r y " t o f u n d a m e n t a l p h i l o s o p h y (even if, i n

precedes egology, a n d also informs Blanchot's n o t i o n s of writ-

fact, L e v i n a s w i s h e s t o i n s t i t u t e e t h i c s a s "first p h i l o s o p h y " ) .

i n g a n d t h e i m a g i n a r y . We t h e n will r e a d B l a n c h o t ' s L'arrêt de

I n e a c h c a s e , t h e s e " s e c o n d a r y " c o n c e r n s b e c o m e very s t r a n g e ,

mort a s a w o r k

u n f a m i l i a r , n o t t o say imaginary (i.e., p r o p e r l y b e l o n g i n g t o

s t r u g g l e (or, i f y o u w i l l , " s t r u c t u r e d " b y finitude). F r o m t h e r e

n o c a t e g o r y a t all). E a c h t h i n k e r w e e x a m i n e h e r e i s a s t r a n g e

we a n a l y z e A g a m b e n ' s La comunità che viene in l i g h t of H e i -

specialist w h o s e a t t e n t i o n t o ethical, literary, a n d political p r o b -

degger's reading of Kantian schematism in order to s h o w an

l e m s h a s led h i m i n t o a n o b s c u r e r e l a t i o n w i t h l a n g u a g e itself

affinity b e t w e e n i t a n d t h e B l a n c h o t i a n i m a g i n a r y t h a t , i n t h e

a n d m u t a t i s m u t a n d i s w i t h t i m e . E a c h o p e n s his discipline o n t o

e n d , w e c l a i m i s t h e v e r y " p l a c e " o f c o m m u n i c a t i v i t y a n d its

a dimension in which language becomes imaginary (anony-

r a d i c a l passivity.

"structured"

by n o n a c c o m p l i s h m e n t a n d

m o u s , spoken by no one), a n d in w h i c h time diverges from the

We are arguing that the point to which each thinker we

State-time of chronological progress, increase, and improve-

e x a m i n e l e a d s us is t h e p o i n t of c o m m u n i c a t i v i t y as such, in-

m e n t t o w h i c h c a p i t a l i s t m o d e r n i t y c o m p u l s i v e l y sacrifices it-

s o f a r as this p o i n t is in itself an i n t e r r u p t i o n of c o m m u n i c a -

self. T o p u t i t s u c c i n c t l y : W e a r e m o d e r n t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t w e

t i o n . T h a t is to say, c o m m u n i c a t i v i t y pulverizes d i s c o u r s e . It

a r e sick w i t h c o n t i n u o u s , fleeting, a n d g e o m e t r i c t i m e , a n d w e

gives n o t h i n g t o b e t h o u g h t ; i t gives n o m e s s a g e t o w h i c h w e

are O t h e r to the extent that we are—in a nutshell—finite. But

m i g h t listen b u t , in effect, says: t h e r e is (il y a). C o m m u n i c a t i v i t y

as such—when- ii'h,it is c o m m u n i c a t e d is noi o u t s i d e ii

but

ol thought, is thingish, like anothei body, or like the words

is poetry, the o r i g i n a l and

we speak at a Mineral. Those dying, w o r d s weigh like t h i n g s in

a b s o l u t e singularity of w h a t d o e s n o t cease to t a k e place. Com-

o u r mouths b e c a u s e ihey are n o l o n g e r a b l e t o refer t o a n y -

munication, t h e n ,

t h i n g real.

i n s t e a d b u r i e s l a n g u a g e in itsell is

the

pure

form

of t h e

separation

of

The l a n g u a g e of p o e t r y is t h e very w e a k n e s s of

c o m m u n i c a t i v i t y from itself, or, in a w o r d , (chronological) t i m e .

m e a n i n g t h a t r e m a i n s w h e n t h e real i s w i t h d r a w n f r o m o u r

P o e t r y , h o w e v e r , is an e x p e r i e n c e of t i m e t h a t is r a d i c a l l y d i s -

p o w e r s . T h i s funereal l a n g u a g e w e i g h s i n m y m o u t h a s a t h i n g

c o n t i n u o u s . It is t h e t i m e of f u t u r i t y t h a t d o e s n o t lie in a

a n d is offered to o t h e r s as a useless gift b e c a u s e it c a n no l o n g e r

future either remote or just a r o u n d the corner, but rather in

disappear into the labor of referring. In the lugubrious a t m o -

t h e infinitive " t o " o f t h e " t o c o m e " (or à venir) t o w h i c h w e

sphere of the funeral, w o r d s are that w h i c h maintain contact

shall refer n u m e r o u s t i m e s t h r o u g h o u t t h i s b o o k . I n p o e t r y ,

w i t h a p r o f o u n d l y p a r a l y z e d t i m e . N o l o n g e r a b l e t o refer,

t h a t w h i c h s p e a k s i s t h e very " t o " o f " t o s p e a k . " P o e t r y says

language is imperceptibly transformed because it begins to

t h e p u r e there, o r t h e p u r e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a n y r e l a t i o n w h a t -

r e s e m b l e itself. U n a b l e t o r e v e a l o r aver, w o r d s a r e l o s t b e -

ever, a n d it is o n l y to t h e p u r e there t h a t we ( " p r o p e r l y , " finitely)

t w e e n m e a n i n g a n d s h o w i n g , between saying a n d seeing, a n d

belong; but we belong such that no residue remains u p o n which

they depart from the straightforwardness of intentionality as

w e m a y reflect, n o r e s i d u e o r p l e a t t h a t w o u l d a l l o w u s t h e

if l u r e d by a n o t h e r destiny. I n s o f a r as I c a n n o t s e p a r a t e myself

a b i l i t y t o g r a s p a n d a u t o - o r i g i n a t e o u r s e l v e s . E m p t y o f itself,

f r o m t h e s e w o r d s t h a t linger o n m y t o n g u e — w o r d s t h a t a r e

o r different i n itself, w e " o r i g i n a t e , " t h u s , i n t h e i n c e s s a n t r e p -

n o l o n g e r m y o w n since t h e y h a v e defected f r o m m y m e a n i n g -

e t i t i o n of t h e there. T h i s will be t h e " o r i g i n a l e x p e r i e n c e " of

to-say—they involve me in t h a t other destiny of w h i c h they

which

are already a part.

B l a n c h o t s p e a k s in L'espace littéraire.

Recently, in a television newscast, we s a w the story of an e l d e r l y w o m a n w h o s e h u s b a n d h a d p a s s e d a w a y o n t h e floor The

Language

of Poetry

o f t h e i r h o m e . She p l a c e d a b l a n k e t o v e r t h e b o d y a n d h e r e m a i n e d t h e r e , as if u n d e r t h e b l a n k e t , for a n u m b e r of y e a r s

Merveilleuse hypocrite! Car elle aime la folie qu'elle surveille. —Levinas

u n t i l a social w o r k e r d i s c o v e r e d t h e " b i z a r r e " s i t u a t i o n . T h e w o m a n h a d c o n t i n u e d t o live, i n t h e m e a n t i m e , m o r e o r less a s she h a d b e f o r e , a s b e s t she c o u l d , given t h e s o l i t u d e a n d failing s t r e n g t h o f a d v a n c e d a g e . A p p a r e n t l y , s h e n e v e r d e n i e d

P o e t r y i s l a n g u a g e t h a t m a k e s itself felt like t h e

t o herself t h a t h e r h u s b a n d w a s d e a d (as d i d t h e d u c h e s s o f

b o d i e s o f liars a n d i m p o s t o r s t h a t b r u s h u p a g a i n s t u s d a i l y o n

M a r l b o r o , w h o h a d a statue m a d e of her late h u s b a n d Will-

the street. According to Levinas, the language of p o e t r y does

i a m Congreve, a n d seated it at the dinner table, w h e r e she

n o t " n a m e a species w h o s e g e n u s i s r e f e r r e d t o b y t h e w o r d

w o u l d converse with it as if the great dramatist had s o m e h o w

2

a r t . " I f P a u l C e l a n " s e e s n o difference b e t w e e n a p o e m a n d a 3

h a n d s h a k e , " it is because poetry, refractory to the categories

s u r v i v e d his o w n d e a t h ) . T h e social w o r k e r w h o c o m m e n t e d o n t h e s i t u a t i o n h e h a d d i s c o v e r e d said, p o i g n a n t l y , t h a t t h e r e

w a s o b v i o u s l y great affection here. 01 the most demanding

() N

E

k i n d , we m u s t a d d . For hers is not a disturbing love. It is n o t I s o l d e ' s or S a l o m e ' s love. H e r s , we m u s t i m a g i n e , is a m o s t i r r e p a r a b l e , profane, a n d absolutely impoverished love (to b o r r o w s o m e t e r m s f r o m A g a m b e n t h a t seem t o b e l o n g i n t h i s

The Allegory of Being

c o n t e x t ) : l o v e for h e r h u s b a n d , for t h e u n r e d e e m e d , u n b u r i e d , o v e r l y p r e s e n t b o d y h e r h u s b a n d w a s , a n d w a s n o t . She d i d n o t , i t s e e m s , l o n g for t h e w i t h d r a w n b e i n g h e r h u s b a n d h a d b e e n , b u t i n s t e a d r e m a i n e d faithful t o t h e d e a t h h e r h u s b a n d c o u l d n o t a c c o m p l i s h . T h i s c o u l d o n l y h a v e led h e r a s t r a y i n h e r m a d n e s s (if w e m u s t call i t t h a t ) , s c a t t e r i n g h e r affection everywhere in the house because her h u s b a n d could no longer o c c u p y his p r o p e r place. W e i m a g i n e t h a t she m u s t h a v e e n j o y e d an elemental intimacy, p r o f o u n d and w i t h o u t qualifications. T h e peculiar intimacy a n d intensity that traditionally bel o n g t o l i t e r a t u r e a r e a f i d e l i t y t o a m b i g u i t y t h a t s c a t t e r s inti-

Image

m a c y e v e r y w h e r e , m u l t i p l y i n g i t t o infinity, like t h e s n o w f l a k e s

L e v i n a s b e g i n s his 1 9 4 8 e s s a y o n a r t , " L a r é a l i t é e t

t h a t fell d o w n u p o n B r e k h o u n o v a s h e lay d o w n u p o n N i k i t a ,

son o m b r e , " simply enough. As everyone k n o w s , the artist

in the tale from Tolstoy of which Blanchot is so fond. In this

s u b s t i t u t e s a n i m a g e for a c o n c e p t . U n i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e intelli-

s t u d y w e w o u l d like t o say very little. W e w o u l d p r e f e r t o b e

gibility of t h e object, t h e a r t i s t d o e s n o t m a i n t a i n a real r e l a t i o n -

like t h e e l d e r l y w o m a n w h o d i d v e r y little for h e r h u s b a n d

s h i p w i t h t h e o b j e c t b y k n o w i n g it, g r a s p i n g it, a n d p u t t i n g i t

u p o n h i s d e m i s e . She m e r e l y p l a c e d a b l a n k e t o v e r h i m . W e

t o w o r k . B y s u b s t i t u t i n g a n i m a g e for t h e c o n c e p t , all r e a l

w o u l d merely w a n t to note that in the image, in the narrative,

relations w i t h the object are neutralized. Artistic "disinterest"

in t h e o t h e r p e r s o n — a s it w e r e , "in p a r e n t h e s i s " (or in q u o t a -

is just this blindness to concepts, Levinas says. T h e artistic

t i o n m a r k s ) or, if y o u prefer, under erasure ( b e c a u s e t h e p a r e n -

g a z e n e u t r a l i z e s v i s i o n a n d p e r c e p t i o n . It is n o t an a c t . It is a

t h e s e s a r e invisible a n d c a n n o t b e a d m i t t e d i n t o t h e n a r r a t i v e

nonconcerning, n o n k n o w i n g gaze. It does not cross a distance

p r o p e r , y e t i n t r o d u c e i n t o t h e s t o r y a n e l e m e n t t h a t i s felt w i t h -

in order to grasp an object as does the h a n d t h a t labors or the

o u t b e i n g a c k n o w l e d g e d , like a n a p h o n i c voice t h a t says " k e e p

c o n s c i o u s n e s s t h a t seizes t h e t h i n g i n a n a c t o f r e c o g n i t i o n .

me in mind but do not think a b o u t m e " ) — o n e enters a maze

T h e simple, e l e m e n t a r y s u b s t i t u t i o n o f t h e i m a g e for t h e c o n c e p t

o f r u m o r a n d i n n u e n d o a s i f o n e ' s p o w e r t o r e a d , t o see, a n d

i n v e r t s all directionality, all c o n s c i o u s " a i m i n g - a t . " T h e i m a g e

t o tell h a d b e c o m e defective, a o r i s t , m e t a m o r p h o s e d , a n d su-

t h a t t h e a r t i s t s u b s t i t u t e s for t h e c o n c e p t i s n o t a n o t h e r o b j e c t

pererogatory.

a n d d o e s n o t b e h a v e like a n o b j e c t . I n e v e r y d a y life, i n e v e r y -

4

d a y c o m m e r c e w i t h t h i n g s , t h e seized object t e n d s t o d i s a p p e a r

33

into its usefulness, its fun< tion, its familiarity. A11 arrests ilii.s movement ol recognition and industry. In art, that w h i c h v a n ishes into utility a n d k n o w l e d g e r e a p p e a r s o u t s i d e its usefuln e s s , o u t s i d e all real r e l a t i o n s , in a s p a c e strictly u n c r o s s a b l e , infinitely fragile, o n l y p r o x i m a l l y there at all, as if its e x i s t e n c e h a d b e e n p a r a l y z e d , o r a s i f t h e o b j e c t led a p h a n t o m T h e i m a g e i s f u n d a m e n t a l l y o r essentially p a s s i v e . I t e l u d e s all a t t e m p t s t o seize i t b e c a u s e i t o c c u p i e s e m p t y s p a c e . A n i m a g e , q u i t e simply, i s n o t h i n g . O u r r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e i m a g e " m a r k s a h o l d o v e r u s r a t h e r t h a n o u r initiative [ m a r q u e u n e 1

emprise sur n o u s , plutôt que n o t r e initiative]," Levinas says. T h e i m a g e c o n t r a s t s w i t h c o n c e p t s or, m o r e precisely, i t i s t h e v e r y e v e n t o f c o n t r a s t i n g w i t h c o n c e p t s . Precisely t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t I d o n o t a c t o n , k n o w , o r t h i n k t h e t h i n g i n its c o n cept, there is an inversion of my everyday relationship with the object, a n d subjectivity is p u s h e d to an e x t r e m e pole of passivity. U n a b l e to seize an i m a g e , I p a r t i c i p a t e in its i m a g i n a r y d i m e n s i o n . T h i s passivity c a n b e o b s e r v e d , L e v i n a s p o i n t s 2

o u t , i n m u s i c , d a n c e , a n d m a g i c . T o this list w e m a y a d d t r a n c e , hysterical possession, a n d hypnotic suggestion. In short, the i m a g e i n s p i r e s a n d i t i s just t h e i m a g e t h a t i n s p i r e s , n o t t h e insofar

as

there

is

Precisely when nothing,

le rythme il n'y a plus de SOI, mais c o n i m c un p a s s a g e de soi a

I'anonymat |.'

M

The p a r t i c i p a t i o n itself is an u n r e p r e s e n t a b l e m o v e m e n t . In a e s t h e t i c e x i s t e n c e t h e r e is an i n d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n w h o is p o s s e s s e d o r affected a n d t h a t w h i c h p o s s e s s e s o r affects. L e v i n a s n o t e s i n p a s s i n g t h a t this s i m u l t a n e i t y o f p o s s e s s i o n

e x i s t e n c e p a r a l l e l t o its t r u t h .

o b j e c t it r e p r e s e n t s .

a oneseli I >m a son ol passage from oneseli to anonymity [dans

the

there is nothing and just

image

exercises

its

impotent

a n d d i s p o s s e s s i o n h a s a r o l e in ecstatic r i t e s . A e s t h e t i c existence involves us in an indistinction of " s a m e " a n d "other." It is t h u s a t r u l y u n r e p r e s e n t a b l e m o m e n t ( b u t n o t a " b e y o n d " ) w h e r e i n t h e d e n s i t y of b e i n g in its " h e r e " is i n v a d e d by a " n o w h e r e , " a " n o t h i n g . " R h y t h m c a n n o t b e objectified; i t c a n o n l y b e d r a m a t i z e d , e n a c t e d , suffered. I t i s e x p e r i e n c e d a s i n d i s t i n c t i o n , a s myself-as-other. U n a b l e t o h a n g o n t o its freed o m , the subject experiences an exteriority in which it c a n n o t b u t m i s t a k e itself for a n o t h e r . T h a t is, t h e s u b j e c t c e a s e s t o e x p e r i e n c e itself as itself. T o t a l l y a b s o r b e d in t h e s c e n e , c o n s c i o u s n e s s , h a v i n g n o t h i n g t o a i m at, b e c o m e s s u p e r e r o g a t o r y , a s d o e s t h e b o d y , for, a t o n c e a c t o r a n d s p e c t a t o r , t h e b o d y i s transformed into sensations belonging to no one, or belonging to an a n o n y m o u s Someone w h o s e organs of perception h a v e d e f e c t e d . H e n c e t h e fear o f t h e a r t i s t i c m i l i e u t h a t i s a t t e s t e d t o i n t h e n e r v o u s a n x i e t y s o m a n y p e o p l e feel i n t h e c r o w d e d concert hall or the august m u s e u m .

power. R h y t h m a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r e t h e " e x c e p t i o n a l s t r u c -

A n i m a g e , L e v i n a s s a y s , i s essentially m u s i c a l i n s o f a r a s i t

t u r e of a e s t h e t i c e x i s t e n c e [la s t r u c t u r e e x c e p t i o n e l l e de l'exis-

d e t a c h e s itself f r o m t h e o b j e c t a s d o e s s o u n d f r o m t h a t w h i c h

t e n c e e s t h é t i q u e ] " a n d a r e a l s o t h e w a y " t h e p o e t i c o r d e r af-

m a k e s the s o u n d . In the aesthetic experience, this d e t a c h m e n t

5

fects u s [ l ' o r d r e p o é t i q u e n o u s a f f e c t e ] . " T h i s i n v o l v e m e n t ,

i s a n e s s e n t i a l a t m o s p h e r e . I n fact, h o w e v e r , this a t m o s p h e r e

i m p o r t a n t l y , i s n o t " b e y o n d " r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . I t is, t o t h e c o n -

is everywhere because images are everywhere. Indeed, the

t r a r y , t h e p r o f o u n d i n v o l v e m e n t o f t h e s u b j e c t i n its o w n r e p -

w h o l e w o r l d w e a r s o n its face its o w n i m a g e a n d w e a r e t h u s

resentations. P r o f o u n d because their " e n t r y into us is o n e w i t h

permitted to think a dimension of aesthetic participation t h a t

o u r entry into them [entrent en nous ou nous entrons en eux,

is general a n d n o t restricted to the movie theater or concert

p e u i m p o r t e ] , " a n d t h e r e f o r e " i n this r h y t h m t h e r e i s n o l o n g e r

hall. This general dimension of p r o f o u n d participation w o u l d ,

3

then, subtend consciousness and industry at every moment,

i m a g e , a nonobje< t, •

t h i n g , triggers the i m m e d i a c y oi p a s -

Industrial language necessarily fails to tell of this i n v o l v e m e n t ,

s i o n a t e i n v o l v e m e n t . W h i l e r e t a i n i n g the f o r m , c o l o r s , s o u n d ,

for this p r o f o u n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n defects from "every m o m e n t "

a n d o t h e r q u a l i t i e s ol the o b j e c t , the i m a g e , in effect, " d r i v e s

of subjectivity (i.e., of initiative a n d p o w e r ) . T h e d e c o n c e p t u a l -

t h e object out o f t h e w o r l d [chasser les o b j e t s d u m o n d e ] " a n d

i z a t i o n of r e a l i t y t h a t a r t realizes r e s t r i c t e d l y is, in fact, a g e n -

t h u s " b r e a k s u p r e p r e s e n t a t i o n [briser l a r e p r é s e n t a t i o n ] "

7

e r a l i z e d i m p e r s o n a l i t y t h a t lies " b e l o w " all k n o w i n g . I f y o u

because the image subtracts the object to be represented from

like, a n e c s t a t i c rite s h a d o w s all c o g n i t i o n . W h e r e b e i n g - i n -

the representation. T h e image disincarnates the real, b u t this

t h e - w o r l d involves existence in concepts a n d t r u t h , ecstatic

is so o n l y b e c a u s e t h e real is a l w a y s a l r e a d y a p p r o a c h e d by its

sensations depart from each m o m e n t of being-in-the-world

i m a g e : " T h e w h o l e o f o u r w o r l d , w i t h its e l e m e n t a r y a n d in-

a n d i n v o l v e us in a d i s i n c a r n a t i o n of t h e r e a l s i m p l y b e c a u s e

tellectually e l a b o r a t e d g i v e n s , c a n t o u c h u s musically, c a n b e -

o f t h e i m a g e (the n o n o b j e c t , o r t h e m u s i c ) t h a t i s o n t h e face

c o m e a n i m a g e [ L ' e n s e m b l e d e n o t r e m o n d e , a v e c ses d o n n é e s

o f all t h a t i s i n t h e w o r l d . B e n e a t h o r b e s i d e o n e ' s c o n c e p t u a l

et élémentaires et intellectuellement élaborées, peut nous

commerce with the world there remains a rhythmic participa-

toucher musicalement, devenir i m a g e ] . " Art in general real-

t i o n w h o s e i m m e d i a c y drives o u t all t h o u g h t . A e s t h e t i c e x i s t -

izes t h i s l a t e n c y a n d p e r p e t u a l l y effaces t h e difference b e t w e e n

e n c e , in s h o r t , is p e r p e t u a l l y suggestive, affirmative, influential,

the real a n d t h e imaginary, n a t u r e a n d mimesis. " L a réalité et

i m p e r s o n a l , a n d i m m e m o r i a l . It is as if in t h e r e a l itself a b a n d

son o m b r e " is thus an introduction to the i m p o r t a n t recent

o f Sirens h a d a l w a y s called t o u s , a s i n B l a n c h o t ' s r e t e l l i n g o f

w o r k d o n e by Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe on radical, or n o n -

the fabulous episode from Homer.

6

8

P l a t o n i c (i.e., n o n r e s t r i c t e d , t h a t is to say, general) m i m e s i s .

9

A r t realizes t h e p a r a d o x o f i m m e d i a c y — t h e p a r a d o x o f a n i m m e d i a c y t h a t d r i v e s o u t all m e d i a t i o n a n d , e s s e n t i a l l y e m p t y , d r i v e s o u t itself a n d i s t h u s o u t s i d e m e m o r y . D i s i n c a r nate a n d impersonal, aesthetic existence c a n n o t enter into any

Duality A sign d i r e c t l y refers to its o b j e c t , b u t an i m a g e 10

p r e s e n t (or it " d i e s " w h e n forced t o , as do the Sirens in

resembles it.

An image resembles an object, b u t resemblance

Blanchot's essay). It is thus intolerable to t h o u g h t . N o t the

is n o t the result of a c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n t w o realms: the real

m i n u t e s t sliver o f reflection o r t e m p o r a l lag m a k e s r o o m for

a n d t h e i m a g i n a r y . T h i s is a key p o i n t for L e v i n a s in t h i s essay.

s u b j e c t i v e initiative o r a c t i o n . T h e m u s i c l o v e r n o d o u b t feels

A u d i e n c e s w h o r e s p o n d t o a film b y i m m e d i a t e l y c o m p a r i n g

g r e a t p a s s i o n as s h e listens to a b e l o v e d p i e c e , b u t it is n o t

i t t o s o m e r e a l i t y often r e s p o n d e n e r g e t i c a l l y a n d aggressively

c e r t a i n t h a t s h e feels herself in t h e p a s s i o n . P a r a d o x i c a l l y , i m -

as if they w e r e being cheated of reality a n d only t h e p r o p e r

m e d i a c y u n h i n g e s m e f r o m myself. T h e p r o x i m i t y o f a r t t o

c o m p a r i s o n c o u l d r e s t o r e t h e r e a l t o itself a n d k e e p t h e t w o

magic a n d trance indicates a trajectory wherein the subject

r e a l m s s e p a r a t e . I n j e o p a r d y i s t h e p r o p e r difference b e t w e e n

e x p e r i e n c e s a f a i n t i n g a w a y o f self a l t o g e t h e r , a n d a n e x p o -

t h e m . But resemblance is n o t the e n d result of a c o m p a r i s o n .

sure to exteriority. T h e body has a m e m b r a n e , a skin, but the

I t i s t h a t w h i c h e n g e n d e r s t h e i m a g e i n t h e first p l a c e . R e s e m -

self d o e s n o t . T h e " m a g i c a l " c o n v e r s i o n o f t h e o b j e c t i n t o a n

b l a n c e b e g i n s in t h e r e a l itself:

I 1ère is a p e r s o n w h o is wli.il lie is; bill he d o e s nol

apart from its truth (from its identity), li i s a s ii thai which is

m a k e u s forget, d o e s not a b s o r b , c o v e r over entirely

imaginable w e r e a l w a y s already left b e h i n d by the thing. Inso-

t h e objects h e h o l d s a n d t h e w a y h e h o l d s t h e m , his

far as a t h i n g r e s e m b l e s itself, it d e p a r t s from itself a n d c a n be

gestures, limbs, gaze, t h o u g h t , skin, which escape from

q u o t e d , or p l a c e d in p a r e n t h e s i s , in an i m a g e . An i m a g e c a p -

u n d e r t h e i d e n t i t y of his s u b s t a n c e , w h i c h like a t o r n

t u r e s a n d i m m o b i l i z e s this (invisible, u n i m a g i n a b l e ) m o v e m e n t

s a c k is u n a b l e to c o n t a i n t h e m . [ . . . ] T h e r e is t h e n a

o f a thing-resembling-itself. A r t c a p t u r e s t h a t w h i c h t r u t h

d u a l i t y in this p e r s o n , t h i s t h i n g , a d u a l i t y in its b e i n g .

s h e d s , leaves a b a n d o n e d , l e a k s . Art, Levinas tells us s u m m a r i l y ,

It is w h a t it is a n d it is a s t r a n g e r to itself, a n d t h e r e is

" l e t s g o o f t h e p r e y for t h e s h a d o w [ l ' a r t l a c h e d o n e l a p r o i e

a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n these t w o m o m e n t s . We will say

pour Pombre]."

t h e t h i n g is itself a n d is its i m a g e . A n d t h a t this r e l a t i o n -

w a s t h e p r e y ? W h a t was lost?

s h i p b e t w e e n t h e t h i n g a n d its i m a g e i s r e s e m b l a n c e .

1 2

We are nonetheless entitled to ask: W h a t

T h e a n s w e r t o this q u e s t i o n i s a m b i g u o u s . T h e r e is, L e v i n a s s a y s , a d u a l i t y in b e i n g , a n o n t r u t h or a d e f e c t i o n f r o m t r u t h

[Voici u n e p e r s o n n e q u i est c e q u ' e l l e est; m a i s elle n e

t h a t i s s i m u l t a n e o u s w i t h t r u t h . S i m u l t a n e o u s w i t h being it-

fait p a s oublier, n ' a b s o r b e p a s , n e r e c o u v r e p a s e n t i è r e -

self, a t h i n g r e s e m b l e s itself, or flees itself. G i o r g i o A g a m b e n

m e n t les o b j e t s q u ' e l l e t i e n t et la m a n i è r e d o n t elle les

u n d e r s t a n d s t h i s t o m e a n t h a t a t h i n g i s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y itself

t i e n t , ses g e s t e s , ses m e m b r e s , s o n r e g a r d , s a p e n s é e ,

and its q u a l i t i e s w i t h o u t b e i n g t h e s a m e t h i n g a s its q u a l i t i e s .

sa peau, qui s'échappent de sous l'identité de sa sub-

A t h i n g , A g a m b e n s a y s , i s n o t its q u a l i t i e s , i s n o t i d e n t i c a l t o

s t a n c e , i n c a p a b l e , c o m m e u n sac t r o u é , d e les c o n t e n i r .

its q u a l i t i e s , b u t a t t h e s a m e t i m e i t i s n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n its

[ . . . ] Il y a d o n c c e t t e p e r s o n n e , d a n s c e t t e c h o s e u n e

q u a l i t i e s . W e shall r e t u r n t o this d e l i c a t e p o i n t i n o u r c h a p t e r

d u a l i t é , u n e d u a l i t é d a n s s o n ê t r e . Elle est c e q u ' e l l e est

o n A g a m b e n . (Let u s n o t e for n o w , h o w e v e r , t h a t B l a n c h o t

et elle est é t r a n g è r e à e l l e - m ê m e et il y a un r a p p o r t

reads the same ambiguity t h r o u g h the uncanniness of the ca-

e n t r e ces d e u x m o m e n t s . N o u s d i r o n s q u e l a c h o s e est

daver.

elle-même et son image. Et que ce r a p p o r t entre la chose

t h a n t h e c a d a v e r t h a t lies i n s t a t e . Yet t h e d e p a r t e d i s c e r t a i n l y

e t s o n i m a g e est l a r e s s e m b l a n c e . ]

11

14

13

He points out that the dear departed is nothing other

n o t the same thing as the corpse, is not identical with the cadaver. T h e d e a r d e p a r t e d o n e i s g o n e , precisely. Yet, i n t h e c o r p s e ,

A p e r s o n or a t h i n g r e s e m b l e s itself a n d t h e r e s e m b l a n c e is

t h e d e p a r t e d c o m e s t o r e s e m b l e herself, o r e v e n , returns t o

a l r e a d y its " o t h e r " d e s t i n y : t o w a r d t h e i m a g e . T h i s m o v e m e n t

herself a s h e r r e s e m b l a n c e , w h i l e a t t h e s a m e t i m e a b s e n t i n g

of resemblance is obscure. O n e c a n n o t imagine a thing resem-

herself. T h e r e is a s o r t of e r o s i o n at w o r k h e r e t h a t is strictly

b l i n g itself. O n e s i m p l y i m a g i n e s t h e t h i n g , o f c o u r s e . T h i s

s p e a k i n g u n t h i n k a b l e . It is n o t a c a s e of q u a l i t i e s c l i n g i n g to

a t t e s t s t o t h e s i m u l t a n e i t y o f its b e i n g a n d its a p p e a r i n g . T h a t

s o m e substance, sub-base, or f u n d a m e n t . It is rather t h e case

which appears, however, is detachable from the thing a n d can

t h a t resemblance moves to replace the real, t h a t identity seems

e n d o u t s i d e t h e t h i n g on a v i d e o t a p e or in a m u s e u m . T h a t a

t o b e " c o n s t i t u t e d " b y r e s e m b l a n c e o r q u a l i t i e s w i t h o u t being

t h i n g is i m a g i n a b l e , t h a t it is sensible, gives it a n o t h e r d e s t i n y

those qualities or that resemblance.)

Levinas finds, therefore, thai that w h i c h is strange, ob

nait d a n s son p r o p r e reflet \ .

n i i

The massive presence ol a corpse-

s c u r e (bul in no w a y ineffable), and lends itsell to art a n d to

w r i n g s so m a n y tears from us b e c a u s e it o c c u p i e s fully a n d

m y t h is t h i s : Being-such-as-it-is, the real in its t r u t h , is a l r e a d y

w i t h excessive c o m p l e t e n e s s the place o f t h e d e p a r t e d l o v e d

offered t o , or is in, t h e i m a g i n a r y . T h e b e i n g - i n - t h e - i m a g i n a r y

o n e . T h e real is itself and it e s c a p e s itself. A r t d o e s n o t m e r e l y

of t h e r e a l is a k i n d of o r i g i n a r y e x o t i c i s m . It is t h e s t r u c t u r e

reflect this e v a s i o n ; it b r i n g s it o u t a n d c o m p l e t e s it. It i n t e n s i -

o f t h e sensible a s s u c h . T h e sensible c h a r a c t e r o f t h e t h i n g , its

fies it by c o m p l e t i n g it, by q u o t i n g it, by s u b s t i t u t i n g for t h e

q u a l i t i e s (red, h a r d , s o n o r o u s , a r o m a t i c ) , m a k e i t i m a g i n a b l e ,

t r u t h o f t h e t h i n g its i m a g e — a s i f i t w a s indifferent t o t h e

a n d t h e t r u t h o f t h e t h i n g i s n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n its b e i n g i m a g -

r e a l i t y of t h e t h i n g , or as if t h e r e a l i t y of t h e t h i n g c o u n t e d for

inable as such. T h e real, being, truth, is the place w h e r e the

n o t h i n g . A r t p l a c e s i n p a r e n t h e s i s t h e fugitivity o f t h e r e a l , its

imaginary takes place. T h a t which is "lost," the " p r e y " t h a t

ambiguity, a n d circumscribes a " d i m e n s i o n of evasion [une

a r t " l e t s g o of" is, q u i t e simply, t h e v e r y e v e n t o f t h e i m a g i -

dimension d'évasion]."

n a r y — a n e v e n t t h a t c a n n o t b e i m a g i n e d , a n e v e n t t h e real i s

i n t o t h e w o r l d the a t m o s p h e r e o f t h a t t e m p o r a l interval L e v i n a s

a l r e a d y i n v o l v e d in. (By t h e w a y , this i s t h e t o r m e n t o f t h e

calls

1 6

Insofar as it does this, it introduces

Ventretemps.

B l a n c h o t i a n w r i t e r : h e loses t h e m o s t desired m o m e n t , t h e e v e n t

T o s u m u p : I n s o f a r a s a b e i n g r e s e m b l e s itself ( a p a r t f r o m

o f p o e t i c l a n g u a g e itself. H e i s t o r m e n t e d b y t h e p r e s e n c e / a b -

being itself, t h a t is, a p a r t f r o m t h e t r u t h p r o p e r t o its b e i n g ,

s e n c e in t h e i m a g e of t h a t w h i c h is u n i m a g i n a b l e . In s h o r t , t h e

i.e., its p r e s e n c e ) it is sensible a n d this sensibility is its n o n t r u t h ,

r e a l as-it-is i s a l w a y s a l r e a d y b e c o m i n g a n i m a g e , a n u n t r u t h . )

its s h a d o w . T h e i m a g e d o e s n o t p r e c e d e t h e r e s e m b l i n g . T h e

Being is d u a l . It is s i m u l t a n e o u s w i t h itself. I r r e d u c i b l y

neutralization of space in the image is the r e s e m b l a n c e t h a t 1 7

a m b i g u o u s , it is w i t h d r a w n f r o m itself in its v e r y sensibility.

"engenders the image [engendre l ' i m a g e ] . "

N o n t r u t h is t h e sensible c h a r a c t e r of t h e t h i n g . I n s o f a r as a

t i c i p a t e in its t r u t h or in its b e i n g , b u t p a r a l l e l to t h i s a t h i n g

b e i n g r e s e m b l e s itself it is s e n s i b l e , b u t its sensibility is an o b -

d e p a r t s f r o m itself i n a n e m i s s i o n t h a t i s p h a n t a s m i c a n d i s

s c u r e e s s e n c e or fugitivity t h a t " d i s i n c a r n a t e s " b e i n g . I see a

n o t identical w i t h truth. T h e quasi existence of this p h a n t a s m

t h i n g as its i m a g e , n o t through it. ( T h u s , L e v i n a s s a y s t h a t t h e

is a " s e m b l a n c e of e x i s t i n g [ s e m b l a n t d ' e x i s t e r ] " or a n o n t r u t h

i m a g e i s t h e a l l e g o r y o f b e i n g , a p o i n t t o w h i c h w e shall r e t u r n

without being.

shortly.) T h e d i s i n c a r n a t i o n o f b e i n g i s t h e v e r y i n t e n s i t y a n d

s h o w t h a t the Italian philosopher m a k e s of this p h a n t a s m a

e s s e n t i a l s t r a n g e n e s s o f a r t . But a r t h a s its o w n a g g r e s s i v i t y a s

p u r e r e t u r n t o b e i n g , b u t t o b e i n g p u r e l y p r o f a n e d , t h a t is,

w e l l . I n a r t , t h e sensible d o e s n o t m e r e l y d e p a r t f r o m t h e r e a l .

s t r i p p e d of all ineffability a n d identity.)

18

A thing can par-

(In t h e c h a p t e r o n G i o r g i o A g a m b e n , w e shall

It " i n s i s t s " on t h e a b s e n c e of t h e o b j e c t . S p l a s h e s of color, s o u n d , a n d bits o f foreign m a t t e r " o c c u p y [the object's] p l a c e fully t o m a r k its r e m o v a l , a s t h o u g h t h e r e p r e s e n t e d o b j e c t

The

d i e d , w e r e d e g r a d e d , w e r e d i s i n c a r n a t e d i n its o w n reflection

W e h a v e seen t h a t a n i m a g e i s m u s i c a l , t h a t i t i s

Obscure

Temporality

of the

Artwork

[occupent entièrement sa place p o u r m a r q u e r son éloignement,

r h y t h m i c , b u t in t h e last a n a l y s i s , it is p l a s t i c , a s t a t u e , a " s t o p -

c o m m e s i l'objet r e p r é s e n t é m o u r a i t , s e d é g r a d a i t , s e d é s i n c a r -

p a g e o f t i m e , o r r a t h e r its d e l a y b e h i n d itself [un a r r ê t d u t e m p s

ou plutôi son retard sur lui même]." The u n i e thai seems (<>

together bul infinitely fragile, a l w a y s s h a l l o w e d by the possi-

be i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the arl ol novels, plays, a n d c i n e m a c a n in

bility ol congealing into an image a n d thus ol w i t h d r a w i n g

no w a y " s h a t t e r t h e fixity of t h e i m a g e | n ' é b r a n l e p a s la fixité

from o u r p o w e r s . ' '

19

de l'image]."

2 0

J u s t a s M o n a Lisa's smile will n e v e r b r o a d e n ,

Being is d u a l . It d o u b l e s up a n d r e s e m b l e s itself, a n d t h e

s o will H a m l e t e t e r n a l l y a g r e e t o m e e t w i t h t h e g h o s t t h a t says

t e m p o r a l i t y of a r t is c a r v e d o u t of this r e p e t i t i o n . It is in t h i s

it is h i s f a t h e r ' s , a n d so e t e r n a l l y will K a n e suffer t h e loss of

w a y t h a t t h e real itself solicits t h e a r t i s t , since i t i s a l w a y s

his family, his p o l i t i c a l a m b i t i o n s , his e m p i r e , a n d his m a r -

a l r e a d y i n v o l v e d i n its o w n s h a d o w a n d t h u s i s a l r e a d y v u l -

r i a g e s . T h e w o r k o f a r t will forever b e a r r e s t e d i n t h e t a s k o f

nerable to the temporal modification that is the image, the

a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h e w o r k o f b e i n g . I t will forever defect f r o m

narrative, the history. An artist is a p e r s o n w h o is fascinated

t h e t i m e p r o p e r t o b e i n g . C e l l u l o i d a n d p a p e r will o f c o u r s e

by the plasticity of the real. He or she is o n e w h o , as Blanchot

d e c a y , b u t as an image t h e a r t w o r k will be forever fixed en

s a y s , "lives t h e e v e n t a s a n i m a g e [vivre u n é v é n e m e n t e n i m -

l'entretemps, a n d this fatality is t h e c e n t r a l c o n c e r n of Levinas's

age],"

essay on art.

ready a n i m a g e (or a l r e a d y r e s e m b l e s itself a n d i s d e t a c h e d

Art is an instant t h a t " e n d u r e s w i t h o u t a future [dure sans

2 4

t h a t is, w h o e x p e r i e n c e s t h e e v e n t i n s o f a r a s i t i s al-

f r o m t h e r e a l ) . L e v i n a s p u t s i t this w a y : "Life solicits t h e n o v -

a n d even w i t h o u t a d u r a t i o n . For art is an image

elist w h e n i t s e e m s t o h i m a s i f i t w e r e a l r e a d y s o m e t h i n g o u t

a n d a n i m a g e is, i f w e m a y say t h i s , rigorously u n c e r t a i n . I t

of a b o o k [La vie sollicite le r o m a n c i e r q u a n d elle lui a p p a r a î t

does n o t even occupy space. An image is an "impersonal a n d

c o m m e s i elle s o r t a i t déjà d ' u n l i v r e ] . "

avenir]"

2 1

2 5

This means that there

There

i s a l r e a d y s o m e t h i n g artificial a b o u t t h e r e a l , s o m e t h i n g a e s -

is thus something deadly in the puppetry that is art. Unable to

t h e t i c , u n c a n n y , p l a s t i c — i f y o u l i k e , s o m e t h i n g f a k e . Life i s

f o r c e itself i n t o t h e p r e s e n t a n d a s s u m e a f u t u r e , a r t i s t h e

a l w a y s very n e a r l y a n o v e l , an i m a g e , a c o r p s e . P u t differently,

intrusion of d e a t h into the familiar w o r l d . T h e t e m p o r a l i t y

the real is always vulnerable to the stoppage of time—to the

a r t realizes, Levinas says, is the temporality of n i g h t m a r e . Like

i m a g e of finitude—that it w e a r s on its face. I n s o f a r as t h i s

t h e z7 y a, t h e i n s t a n t of fixity t h a t is t h e e v e n t of a r t s t r i p s

p e r s o n r e s e m b l e s herself, she is infinitely v u l n e r a b l e , infinitely

f r e e d o m o f its p o w e r t o a s s u m e t h e p r e s e n t m o m e n t . A r t i s

fragile, as an i m a g e is fragile. A s t r a n g e w e a k n e s s p e r v a d e s

n o t the replica of a time that has been suspended halfway

h e r t h a t w e c a n n o t g r a s p , a b l e e d i n g w e c a n n o t s t a n c h . She i s

t h r o u g h its c o n t i n u a t i o n a n d a b a n d o n e d a s h a l f - c o m p l e t e d like

n o t t h e s a m e t h i n g a s h e r r e s e m b l a n c e t o herself, b u t s h e i s

a bridge t h a t stops in midspan. As Levinas has been s h o w i n g

n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n it. H u m a n r e a l i t y i s n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n

u s , a r t i s t h a t w h i c h , i n t h e g e n e r a l e c o n o m y o f b e i n g , defects

t h i s infinite v u l n e r a b i l i t y , inequality-in-itself, o r difference-in-

from the present. It is that part of being that incessantly moves

itself. It is as if t h e face of t h i n g s w e r e a n o t h e r b o d y , a b o d y

to its en deçà, its " i n t e r s t i c e , " as if e a c h m o m e n t of ( c h r o n o -

" m a d e u p of" fragility a n d t h a t t a k e s t h e p l a c e o f p e r s o n a l

logical) t i m e w e r e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a m o m e n t of fate. T h i s s h o u l d

p r e s e n c e . W e m a y w i s h t o say t h a t t h i s i s a n infinite v u l n e r -

r e m i n d us of a p o i n t t h a t is i m p o r t a n t to L e v i n a s ' s w o r k as a

ability to death. However, the ontological signification is

w h o l e . He c o n c e i v e s of t i m e as a series of i n s t a n t s s u t u r e d

d o u b l e d b y t h e fugitivity o f t h e i m a g e : a d e r e l i c t t i m e u n a b l e

a n o n y m o u s instant [instant i m p e r s o n n e l et a n o n y m e ] . "

2 2

m a y be s u l i i i e d inlo time's

to become present and that insists on the absence <>l being,

s h o r e . It

b u t a s it a b s e n c e ilsell h a d been immobilized in its a p p r o a c h

continuum, a n d s t o p just short ol the p r e s e n t . It is as if living

a n d c o u l d n o t even a c h i e v e the a b s e n c e the i m a g e s o d r a m a t i -

t u n e w e r e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s u t u r e d i n t o a plastic series, a c e a s e -

I'i'iilirlfinj/s,

outside any

less interval d e p a r t i n g from a n y c o n t i n u i t y . Or it is as if b e i n g -

cally insists o n . L e v i n a s g o e s o n t o say i n t h i s e s s a y t h a t a r t i s " t h e u n c e r -

as-it-is, i n its t r u t h , w e r e also i r r e p a r a b l y c o n s i g n e d t o n o n t r u t h ,

t a i n t y o f [time's] c o n t i n u a t i o n [ l ' i n c e r t i t u d e d e s a c o n t i n u a -

t o i m m o b i l i z a t i o n i n t h e i m a g e — b u r i e d alive, a s i n P o e . A r t

the possibility t h a t time can stop. This anxiety attests

realizes t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t living b e i n g c a n a l w a y s b e e x p e r i -

t o a d i m e n s i o n o f t i m e t h a t peels itself a w a y f r o m c h r o n o l o g y

enced as an image, as unliving, as always already petrified—

a s t h o u g h " a w h o l e set o f facts w a s a l r e a d y i m m o b i l i z e d a n d

a s i f q u a l i t i e s c l u n g t o n o t h i n g a t all.

tion],"

2 6

f o r m e d a series [ c o m m e si t o u t e u n e suite de faits s ' i m m o b i l isaient et formaient s é r i e ] . "

2 7

T h e r e a l , a t its s u r f a c e s , o n its

face, offers itself t o a r t a s i f i t w a s a l r e a d y p l a s t i c . T h e a r t i s t

The

p a r t i c i p a t e s solely i n t h e s h a d o w d i m e n s i o n . T h e v e r y inti-

Art is then something horrible, "something i n h u m a n

Space

of Art 3 0

m a c y a n d i n t e n s i t y o f a r t a r e its a t t e n t i v e n e s s t o w h a t a p p e a r s ,

a n d m o n s t r o u s [quelque chose d ' i n h u m a i n e t d e m o n s t r u e u x ] "

to w h a t is at the surface, to t h a t w h i c h incessantly comes to

because it is powerless, because it c a n n o t go beyond, because

t h e s u r f a c e — r e s e m b l a n c e . It is at h e r s u r f a c e s t h a t a p e r s o n is

i t c a n n o t e v e n e n d . A r t i s r a d i c a l passivity. I t " s h o w s " this

n e a r l y petrified, n e a r l y c a p t u r e d ( b u t i t i s h e r e t h a t she i s a l s o

p a s s i v i t y in t h e s t o p p a g e of t i m e en deçà du temps. Its v a l u e to

e s s e n t i a l l y fugitive, for t h e i m a g e flees t h e p r e s e n t ) . T h i s i n c e s -

c i v i l i z a t i o n is a m b i g u o u s since it is u t t e r l y foreign to t h e w o r l d

sant c o m i n g to the surface is the obscurity of the time of dy-

o f i n i t i a t i v e . I t s h o w s t h e w o r l d t h e o b s c u r i t y o f fate n o t a s a n

i n g , a s L e v i n a s p r o c e e d s t o m a k e clear. T h e t i m e o f d y i n g i s

elsewhere that comes from beyond to intervene in the present,

n o t the cross section of a c o n t i n u u m . Instead, " T h e time of

b u t a s t h e v e r y face t h e w o r l d w e a r s . A r t a c c o m p l i s h e s t h i s

dying itself c a n n o t give itself t h e o t h e r s h o r e . W h a t is u n i q u e

feat b y w a y o f i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . O u t s i d e all l a b o r , a r t b e c k o n s

a n d p o i g n a n t i n this i n s t a n t i s d u e t o t h e fact t h a t i t c a n n o t

to us as if all life c o u l d e n d up in m y t h , in plasticity, in t h e

p a s s . In dying, t h e h o r i z o n of t h e f u t u r e is g i v e n , b u t t h e fu-

" r h y t h m of a reality w h i c h solicits o n l y its a d m i s s i o n i n t o a

t u r e as p r o m i s e of a n e w p r e s e n t is r e f u s e d ; o n e is in t h e inter-

b o o k o r a p a i n t i n g [le r h y t h m e d ' u n e r é a l i t é q u i n e sollicite

v a l , f o r e v e r a n interval [Le t e m p s - m ê m e d u mourir n e p e u t

q u e s o n a d m i s s i o n d a n s u n livre o u d a n s u n t a b l e a u ] . "

3 1

It is

p a s s e d o n n e r l ' a u t r e rive. C e q u e cet i n s t a n t a d ' u n i q u e e t d e

as if a r t c o u l d r e p l a c e t h e b u i l d i n g up of a h a b i t a t , a w o r l d ,

p o i g n a n t t i e n t au fait de ne p a s p o u v o i r passer. D a n s le mourir,

t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of justice, g o v e r n m e n t s , t h e city itself. Ulti-

l ' h o r i z o n d e l ' a v e n i r est d o n n é e , m a i s , l ' a v e n i r e n t a n t q u e

mately "horrible," art nonetheless beckons to us in the same

p r o m e s s e d u p r é s e n t n o u v e a u est r e f u s é — o n est d a n s l'inter-

w a y t h a t a r h y t h m i s irresistibly e n g a g i n g .

valle, à j a m a i s i n t e r v a l l e . ] . "

28

T h i s dying, L e v i n a s s a y s , " i s t h e

Levinas concludes, therefore, t h a t art, aesthetic existence,

g r e a t o b s e s s i o n o f t h e artist's w o r l d [la g r a n d e o b s e s s i o n d u

r h y t h m , simultaneous possession a n d dispossession, a n d irre-

monde artiste]."

2 9

An instant of time may not have another

s p o n s i b i l i t y a r e a p a r t of life a n d h a v e a p l a c e , " b u t o n l y a

p l a c e , in l i m n . m happiness [mais u n e place seulement—dans 11

le b o n h e u r de l'homme]." ( Iriticism, insofar as it approaches

age]" as Blanchot p u i s u . ' " An remains m c o n t a c t w i t h t h a t w h i c h is infinitely vulnerable to disincarnation—that w h i c h is

t h e a r t i s t i c event a s s u c h , r e i n t r o d u c e s the i n h u m a n i t y o f a r t

n e i t h e r itself in its t r u t h n o r in its i m a g e (its d o u b l e , or its

b a c k i n t o t h e w o r l d . A s w e h a v e seen, this will n o t i n v o l v e a

o t h e r fate). T h e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f the i m a g e for t h e c o n c e p t i s

c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e a r t w o r k t o s o m e reality. I t involves t r e a t i n g

o n l y t h e first s t e p , for w h e n t h e i m a g e h a s s u c c e e d e d i n d r i v -

the a r t w o r k as a myth: "[TJhis immobile statue has to be p u t

ing t h e o b j e c t o u t o f e x i s t e n c e , w h a t r e m a i n s ? W h a t i s t h e

i n m o v e m e n t a n d m a d e t o s p e a k [cette s t a t u e i m m o b i l e , i l f a u t

image w h e n it is no longer an image of . . . ? Neither the thing

It involves, in

n o r its d o u b l e , t h e a r t w o r k i s a t o n c e t h e t r a c e o f n o o r i g i n . I f

short, interrupting myth and integrating that which is exces-

a r t " l e t s g o o f t h e p r e y for t h e s h a d o w , " a n d i f t h e " i n s e c u r i t y

sively c l o s e d t o l a n g u a g e b a c k i n t o t h e l a n g u a g e f r o m w h i c h i t

of a b e i n g t h a t h a s a p r e s e n t i m e n t of its fate is t h e g r e a t o b s e s -

l a m e t t r e e n m o u v e m e n t e t l a faire p a r l e r ] . "

3 3

M y t h is t h e s o u r c e of p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r u t h , for it is,

s i o n o f t h e artist's w o r l d , " t h i s i s b e c a u s e a r t m a i n t a i n s c o n -

as the m o m e n t of resemblance, the distance the real takes from

t a c t w i t h t h e i m a g i n a r y s p a c e left e m p t y o f all s u b s t a n c e a n d

itself—its a m b i g u i t y a n d duality. A r t i s a n i n v e r s i o n o f c r e -

i n h a b i t e d b y n o o n e — t h e s p a c e t h a t b e i n g spills o u t i n t o , b e -

defected.

34

It presents to the world the vulnerability of congeal-

side itself. In t h i s s p a c e ( B l a n c h o t ' s l'espace littéraire), t h e r e a l

i n g i n t o a n i m a g e t h a t all c r e a t i o n i s p r e y t o , a n d p h i l o s o p h y

i s a l r e a d y i m a g i n a r y a n d d e t a c h e d f r o m its t r u t h , its identity.

a n d c r i t i c i s m c a n ally t h e m s e l v e s w i t h c r e a t i o n o n l y b y " s k i p -

I n t h i s s p a c e , t h e plasticity o f m a t t e r n o l o n g e r refers t o t h e

ation.

3 5

p i n g o v e r t h e i n t e r v a l s o f t h e m e a n w h i l e [en s a u t a n t les intervalles de l ' e n t r e t e m p s ] . "

3 6

I n effect, this m e a n s t h a t p h i -

s p a c e a n d it is t h e m o s t s u b t l e of b o d i e s , for it is n e i t h e r s u b -

l o s o p h y a n d criticism c a n o n l y b e g i n b y " f o r g e t t i n g " a r t . For, like a n i d o l , L e v i n a s s a y s , a n a r t w o r k i s " s t u p i d . "

s u b s t a n c e t o w h i c h q u a l i t i e s cling b u t t o t h e a r r e s t e d d e a t h t h a t is the rigorous immobility of the statue. It is a m b i g u o u s

3 7

stance nor image but rather the liquidation of the elemental

W e m u s t a d d t h a t every artist since P y g m a l i o n h a s k n o w n t h i s .

distance that separates the t w o . This space belongs neither to

A r t is a c a r i c a t u r e of life, n o t a n o t h e r , better, life. T h e a r t w o r k

art nor to philosophy, neither to the image nor to the concept.

c a n n o t a s s u m e o r t a k e o n life. I t o v e r f l o w s life o n all s i d e s ,

I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e p h i l o s o p h e r , t h e a r t i s t i s allied w i t h t h e v e r y

like w a t e r w i t h o u t a c o n t a i n e r . U n a b l e t o a t t a i n t h e p r e s e n t

w e a k n e s s o f s p a c e itself: c o m m u n i c a t i o n o r s h e e r c o m m u n i c a -

m o m e n t , t h e a r t w o r k spills all t h e a s p i r a t i o n s t h e a r t i s t b u i l t

t i v i t y — t h e p u r e " t h e r e i s " (il y a). ( B l a n c h o t , in o u r o p i n i o n ,

i n t o it. A r t c a n o n l y e m p t y itself of all t h e artist's efforts.

has gone further t h a n any other writer in our times t o w a r d

The elementary procedure of art is to substitute an image

m a k i n g this space "speak.")

for a c o n c e p t . But t h e a r t i s t c a n n o t b e said t o a i m a t t h e i m a g e

" I n e r t m a t t e r , " L e v i n a s s a y s , " a l r e a d y refers to a s u b s t a n c e

p e r se as a g o a l . A r t ( e x c e p t in a d v e r t i s i n g ) d o e s n o t w i s h to

t o w h i c h its q u a l i t i e s cling. I n a s t a t u e , m a t t e r k n o w s t h e d e a t h

limit itself t o a n i m a g e , h o w e v e r p e r f e c t o r b e a u t i f u l . N e i t h e r

of i d o l s [La m a t i è r e inert se réfère déjà u n e s u b s t a n c e à l a q u e l l e

d o e s t h e a r t i s t a i m a t a n elusive essence n o r ineffability, a s d o

s ' a c c r o c h e n t ses q u a l i t é s . D a n s l a s t a t u e , l a m a t i è r e c o n n a î t l a

p h i l o s o p h y a n d criticism. Art aims to r e m a i n in c o n t a c t w i t h

mort de l'idole]."

t h a t w h i c h is

ter t h e inversion of creation t h a t is l'entretemps. In t h e i n v e r s i o n ,

"unmade in its own image [défait selon son im-

39

T h i s m e a n s t h a t i n a r t m a t t e r will e n c o u n -

apart from the inertia <>i mattet and already withdrawn from t h e thing-for-us, t h e r e is the for no-one that characterizes t h e

The

Profane

N e u t e r . N e u t r a l w i t h respect to what is, a r t , w h i c h s u b s t i t u t e s

For b o t h Lévinas a n d B l a n c h o t , t h e a r t i s t n e i t h e r

t h e i m a g e for t h e c o n c e p t , " p r e s e n t s " t h e sheer that there is,

creates nor reveals.

or anteriority as such. This is the a t m o s p h e r e of art a n d this

eternity of the concept, art arrests in the interval of the image.

That w h i c h t h e p h i l o s o p h e r fixes i n t h e

neutralization is unmediated and immediate, and thus eludes

W h e r e a s p h i l o s o p h y offers u s t h e t h i n g t o k n o w a n d u s e , a r t

all c o g n i t i o n a n d all m e m o r y . T h e a r t w o r k is a t h i n g - f o r - n o -

realizes a w i t h d r a w a l f r o m p o w e r a n d e v e n , m o r e s t r o n g l y , a

one, and it thus induces from us involvements that do not

w i t h d r a w a l f r o m t h e p r e s e n t . A e s t h e t i c e x i s t e n c e is a l a p s e in

o r i g i n a t e i n o u r i n i t i a t i v e . T h i s a l l o w s B l a n c h o t t o say t h a t

o u r ability t o m o b i l i z e t i m e . T h e i n t i m a t e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t i m e

"the image is intimate because it m a k e s of our intimacy an

c a n s t o p is t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of b e i n g delivered to a t i m e w i t h o u t

e x t e r i o r p o w e r t h a t w e s u b m i t t o p a s s i v e l y [ i n t i m e est l ' i m a g e

us, w i t h o u t a present—impersonal and neutral. This is simu-

p a r c e qu'elle fait d e n o t r e intimité u n e p u i s s a n c e extérieure q u e

l a t e d t i m e , a s i m u l a t i o n of e x i s t i n g or an e x i s t e n c e o u t s i d e

T h e s h e e r that there is, or t h e

initiative. It is n o t the p r o m i s e of a n e w beginning a n d it does

il y a, is u n g r a s p a b l e . It e l u d e s every p r e s e n t y e t it is t h a t w i t h -

n o t c a r r y us to a beyond of b e i n g (ethical or o t h e r w i s e ) . It

o u t w h i c h t h e r e will n e v e r h a v e b e e n a n y p o s s i b i l i t y a s s u c h .

only subtracts us from ourselves.

nous subissons passivement]."

4 0

A r t d o e s n o t m e r e l y p r e s e n t , a s L e v i n a s stresses, t h e p o s s i b i l -

In La comunità che viene, G i o r g i o A g a m b e n will say t h a t

ity t h a t t i m e c a n s t o p . I t a l s o , m o r e affirmatively, p r e s e n t s

the whole of our w o r l d has been transformed into an image, a

possibility itself as t h a t w h i c h e l u d e s e v e r y t h i n g — p o s s i b i l i t y

s p e c t a c l e . T h i s i s t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t for his p o l i t i c s . H e will s a y

a s (the) n o t h i n g , a s i m m e d i a t e . W h i c h a m o u n t s t o saying t h a t

t h a t t h e w o r l d h a s c o m e t o r e s e m b l e itself c o m p l e t e l y , t o t a l l y ,

n o t h i n g , or the n o t h i n g , is t h e f o r m of a n y p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n .

a n d t h u s h a s s e p a r a t e d h u m a n a g e n c y f r o m its t r a d i t i o n a l ini-

Presented as arrested, the atmosphere of art presents the

t i a t i v e . T h a t i s t o say, t h e w h o l e o f o u r w o r l d c a n n o w b e

return of t h a t which can never be excluded but which, at the

experienced as an image and we are no longer able to experi-

same time, excludes everything. In the space of literature quali-

e n c e o u r s e l v e s in t h e w o r l d , for its s p a c e is n o w i m a g i n a r y .

ties cling t o n o t h i n g , t o n o b e i n g . S o m e t h i n g e l u d e s c o g n i t i o n ,

H e n c e , A g a m b e n ' s interest in the e x p r o p r i a t i o n of experience

b u t m a k e s itself felt (if o b s c u r e l y ) as t h a t w h i c h is n e v e r " i t -

a n d his a t t e m p t s to rescue from this malaise a radical possibil-

self," t h a t w h i c h i s o n l y " s u g g e s t e d . " S o m e t h i n g c o m e s b u t

ity h e calls p u r e b e i n g - i n - l a n g u a g e . H i s p o l i t i c s i s a n a t t e m p t

r e m a i n s a r r e s t e d i n its " m e a n w h i l e . " F o r B l a n c h o t t h i s w i l l b e

t o a p p r o p r i a t e t h i s e x p r o p r i a t i o n (or t h i s i m p o t e n c e o u t s i d e

t h e t i m e o f w r i t i n g . I t i s u n c o m m o n , unclassifiable, a n d a n o n y -

a n y initiative) n o t a s a n o t h e r p o w e r , b u t a s a n u n p o w e r t h a t i s

m o u s , like a n infinite m u r m u r , a s F o u c a u l t p u t s i t . ' I t i s w r i t -

a n a m b i g u o u s c a p a c i t y for i r r e p a r a b i l i t y . H e w i l l a s k t h a t w e

i n g t h a t c a n n o t e n d itself a n d i s c o n t i n u a l l y o u t s i d e itself like

c e a s e t o seek i n t h e i m a g i n a r y for t h a t w h i c h t h e i m a g i n a r y

a thing a m o n g things. An enormity w i t h o u t p r o p o r t i o n , it is

s u s p e n d s — i d e n t i t y — a n d instead t h a t we rejoin o u r " o l d e s t "

t h e v e r y s c r a t c h i n g s o u n d w e hear, f r o m s o m e w h e r e , w h e n w e

e x p e r i e n c e : t h e sheer p r o f a n i t y that there is. T h e s h e e r il y a is

write these things.

without clamor and without pathos. It would be experienced

4

w h e n there is nothing i<> expei ience

as in aesthetic existent e,

TWO

precisely. In his a n a l y s e s <>l a i l , I i v i n a s b r i n g s oui art's " a b i l i t y " t o c o n s e r v e this e x p e r i e n c e , a n d i n B l a n c h o t w e c a t c h a g l i m p s e i n t o a life o u t s i d e i n i t i a t i v e . F o r all t h r e e w r i t e r s , t h e s h e e r that there is t h a t every i m -

Lcvinas's Ethics

age h a r b o r s is our separation from any particular experience, b u t it does not p r o m i s e a concrete future to which we m a y relate ourselves. Nevertheless, art remains our manifest orient a t i o n t o w a r d s it. R e f u s i n g all g r a s p , a r t " s a y s " t h a t t i m e o u t -

today it is art that inherits, before our very eyes, the delirious role and character of the religious. Today it is art that gnaws at and transforms us. —Bataille

side t h e s y n c h r o n y o f t h e p r e s e n t c a n n o t but b e l o s t , t h a t i t i s n o n c o n s e c u t i v e , d i s c o n t i n u o u s , a r r e s t i n g . I f y o u like, a r t — t h e p u r e form of any possible relation, or anteriority as such—is

Like a Nessus Tunic my skin would be. —Levinas

also the p u r e form of separation (from the personal a n d the s u b j e c t i v e ) . T h a t i s t o say, a r t i s n o t o n l y t h e p r e s e n t i m e n t o f f a t e , i t i s a l s o another d e a t h f r o m w h i c h w e c a n n o t s e p a r a t e o u r s e l v e s a n d w h i c h w e c a n n o t finish, n o t e v e n i n d e a t h . I t i s a loss w e c a n n o t let g o of, b u t t h a t d o e s n o t h o l d u s i n it.

An

Ambiguous

Rapport

A s i f i n r e s p o n s e t o G e o r g e s Bataille ( w h o m , t o

F o r t h e L e v i n a s o f " L a réalité e t s o n o m b r e , " t h e s i t u a t i o n

m y k n o w l e d g e , h e n e v e r cites) E m m a n u e l L e v i n a s h a s a t -

of a r t in the general e c o n o m y of being is limited because it

t e m p t e d t o define e t h i c s a s t h e p r i v i l e g e d site o f d e l i r i u m i n

l a c k s t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e O t h e r (Autrui) t h a t b r e a k s u p t h e

our culture.

spell o f a r t a n d a w a k e n s u s t o r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . B u t w e will w a n t

l'essence defines t h e r a p p o r t w i t h Autrui as t h e " s e e d of folly

t o s h o w , i n o u r n e x t c h a p t e r , t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n w i t h Autrui i s

[grain d e f o l i e ] " i n t h e s o u l . W i t h i n c r e a s i n g c o m p l e x i t y a n d

a m b i g u o u s a n d , i f w e m a y say s o , i m a g i n a r y .

determination he has attempted to articulate a responsibility

H i s g r e a t b o o k Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de 1

i h a t realizes i n t h e e x t r e m e a n a b a n d o n m e n t o f t h e c e r t a i n t i e s a n d i m p e r i a l i s m s o f t h e self. S t r a n g e r t h a n a r t w o u l d b e t h e i m m e m o r i a l r a p p o r t w i t h t h e O t h e r . A s i f t o a n s w e r Bataille's 11 e q u e n t c o m p l a i n t t h a t , in spite of K a n t , we still c a n n o t i m a g ine a n e t h i c s t h a t i s n o t " c o m m i t t e d , " L e v i n a s h a s d e s c r i b e d his e t h i c s as " f o r - t h e - o t h e r [pour l'autre]," b u t " f o r n o t h i n g 1

I p o u r rien]-" in s h o r t , a s o v e r e i g n e t h i c s . E t h i c a l o b l i g a t i o n w o u l d b e , for L e v i n a s , u n c o n t a i n a b l e , a n d i n e x o r a b l y betrayed b y m o r a l s a n d l a w s . I t w o u l d b e , i n fact, i n s t a b i l i t y itself: t h e instability o f t h e n a k e d r e l a t i o n t o t h e O t h e r . For, w i t h Bataille,

31

I

Levinas l a k e s as his s t a r t i n g point the impossibility oi indil

I

\

I

I I

A S

S

I

I

M

M

lo be s u r e , this is no ethics thai w o u l d be recognized as

ference to the O t h e r — t o the mortality <>l the other person—

such by K. 1111 or Mill. In a sense, we can say t h a t in fact t h e r e

as t h e p l a c e (or n o n p l a c e [non-lieu]) w h e r e the self is e x p o s e d

is no l e v i n a s i a n e t h i c s , as it can be said t h a t t h e r e is no p h i -

a n d lacerated. H i s version of Bataille's f a m o u s l'expérience in-

l o s o p h y oi I teidegger, since each is " f o u n d e d " on an a b y s s , a

térieur is mauvaise conscience: " t h e inferiority of n o n - i n t e n t i o n a l

"forgetting." Like the r e l a t i o n w i t h Being, t h e r e l a t i o n w i t h

consciousness [l'intériorité de la conscience non-intentio-

the O t h e r is w i t h o u t an object, an a i m , or a p u r p o s e . It is a

3

n e l l e ] . " I n s i s t i n g , w i t h Bataille, t h a t t h e d e m a n d for a n e t h i c s

r e l a t i o n t h a t d r a i n s c o n s c i o u s n e s s of i n t e n t i o n a l i t y , a n d it is in

c a n n o t b e s u b o r d i n a t e d t o a n y t h i n g else, all o f L e v i n a s ' s w o r k

this r e l a t i o n t h a t Levinas w o u l d p l a c e t h e d i s p o s s e s s i o n o f self

a i m s a t a r e l a t i o n t o t h e O t h e r (Autrui) " o l d e r " t h a n t h e " r e -

t h a t defines c o m m u n i c a t i v i t y a s s u c h a n d t h e o p e n i n g b e y o n d

l a t i o n t o t h e self (egology) a n d t h e r e l a t i o n t o t h e w o r l d (cos-

the confines o f a n y k n o w i n g . T h e r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e O t h e r ( u n -

4

m o l o g y ) . " T h i s o l a m i c r e l a t i o n , h e insists, i s o n e o f r e s p o n s i -

like t h e H e i d e g g e r i a n r e l a t i o n to Being) is n o t a p r e c o m p r e h e n -

bility, a n d it s u b t e n d s a n d i n t e r r u p t s t h e relation so dispiritingly

sion, but a b r e a k u p of any c o m p r e h e n s i o n .

d e s c r i b e d by F r e u d a n d o t h e r s as homo lupus homini.

W e will n o t b e p i t t i n g L e v i n a s a g a i n s t Bataille o n t h e q u e s -

L e t u s n o t e s t r a i g h t a w a y , for i t will g u i d e o u r e n t i r e r e a d -

t i o n of a r t ( w h i c h , as we k n o w , is of limited interest to Levinas)

i n g o f L e v i n a s , t h a t a s this r e l a t i o n i s " o l d e r " t h a n t h e self a n d

versus ethics. W h a t matters to each of t h e m , in spite of their

t h e w o r l d , this O t h e r will h a v e a l w a y s a l r e a d y s u n k i n t o i m -

q u i t e c o n s i d e r a b l e differences, i s t h e s i n g u l a r r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e

m e m o r i a l i t y , p r i o r t o a n y m e m o r y o r r e p r e s s i o n . T h e "rela-

o t h e r p e r s o n a s t h a t w h i c h i s t h e m o s t fragile a n d t h e m o s t

t i o n " t h e n will n o t i n v o l v e t w o t e r m s , t h e self a n d t h e o t h e r .

exposed. It is a relation that w i t h d r a w s from our p o w e r s — a

T h e r e l a t i o n will b e " o l d e r " t h a n a n y self. T h i s a n t e r i o r i t y

r e l a t i o n t o o fragile e v e n t o qualify a s a p r o p e r e x p e r i e n c e .

will b e , for L e v i n a s , a d i s s y m m e t r y a n d a g o o d n e s s w i t h o u t

( T h i s r e l a t i o n , i n fact, e c h o e s t h e r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e i m a g e w e

m e a s u r e t h a t ( d e ) s t r u c t u r e s t h e self as a r e l a t i o n w i t h a never-

h a v e d i s c u s s e d e l s e w h e r e i n this b o o k . ) I t i s i m p o s s i b l e , i n o u r

present Other. We add, therefore, that any relation that the I

o p i n i o n , n o t t o b e f a s c i n a t e d b y L e v i n a s ' s w o r k , b y his r e l e n t -

establishes w i t h an o t h e r subject will o n l y b e t r a y the p u r e anter-

less f o c u s o n a r e l a t i o n t h a t e x c e e d s p o w e r a n d t h a t i s o n l y

i o r i t y t h a t , i n Levinas's t h o u g h t , i m p e r i o u s l y orders m e t o t h e

" p o s s i b l e " a s i m p o s s i b l e , b e t r a y e d , o r fictioned, b e c a u s e w h a t

Other. F u r t h e r m o r e , we m u s t note that, as i m m e m o r i a l , this

Levinas runs up against, again and again, with a n d against

a n t e r i o r r e l a t i o n c a n only b e b e t r a y e d , a n d t h e r e f o r e a n y rela-

H e i d e g g e r , is this (as flatly s t a t e d by M i k k e l B o r c h - J a c o b s e n ) :

t i o n t o a n o t h e r r e m a i n s p a r a d o x i c a l l y faithful t o t h e L e v i n a s i a n

" T h e r e is no e t h i c s , n o r m o r a l s , of finitude [Il n ' y a p a s d'

éthique. H e n c e , L e v i n a s offers n o c r i t i q u e o f a n y e x i s t i n g e t h -

'éthique', pas de 'morale' de la finitude]." W h a t happens in

ics o r m o r a l s , n o r d o e s h e p r o p o s e m a x i m s a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h

L e v i n a s , w h a t p a s s e s u n d e r t h e word e t h i c s , i s n o ethics p e r

w e m u s t a c t . All o f Levinas's t h o u g h t g r a v i t a t e s t o w a r d t h i s

se, n o r e l a t i o n a s s u c h . W h a t h a p p e n s i s a r e l a t i o n t h a t i s n o

obsessive r e l a t i o n t h a t refracts all a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s , h o l d i n g e a c h

relation, that cannot but be betrayed, and by which I cannot

in relation to t h a t i m m e m o r i a l relation w h i c h each c a n n o t b u t

b u t be o b l i g a t e d , b e c a u s e t h e " e s s e n c e " of t h e r e l a t i o n to Autrui

b e t r a y . H i s e t h i c s , in s h o r t , is essentially a m b i g u o u s .

is au-delà de l'essence—is b e t r a y a l "itself," or is t h a t w h i c h

5

I

W

D

I

I

\

I

I

J ;\ s

s

I

I

I I I

(

S

undermines and h o l l o w s out all real relations. This is precisely

Ii diverges from nothingness as well as from b e i n g . It

h o w the o t h e r p e r s o n

obligates me: for this other person is

provokes tins responsibility against my will, t h a t is,

without relation, is a l o n e a n d m o r t a l , is a l r e a d y b e y o n d my

by substituting me for the o t h e r as a h o s t a g e . All my

powers and, therefore, I, t o o , am without relation. Hence my

inwardness is invested in t h e form of a d e s p i t e - m e , for-

a n x i e t y , a n d h e n c e t h e " r e s t l e s s n e s s " i n t h e self o f w h i c h

a not her. D e s p i t e me for a n o t h e r is signification p a r

L e v i n a s s o often s p e a k s . W h a t " b i n d s " m e t o t h e o t h e r p e r s o n

e x c e l l e n c e . And it is t h e sense of t h e " o n e s e l f , " t h a t

i s t h e nonrelation t o t h e O t h e r , t h e n o t h i n g o r n o - r e l a t i o n t h a t

u i usative that d e r i v e s f r o m no n o m i n a t i v e ; it is t h e

I, myself, am. My s k i n , a N e s s u s t u n i c .

very l a d of finding myself w h i l e losing myself.

.» .">

We are describing, then, an ethics of betrayal. But betrayal of w h a t ? Of nothing. Of no relation. Betrayal of t h a t relation

11 a d i a c h r o n i e , c'est le refus de la c o n j o n c t i o n , le n o n -

t h a t can only be betrayed. Betrayal of that " n o ethics" t h a t

t o t a l i s a b l e et, e n c e sens p r é c i s , Infini. M a i s d a n s l a

f i n i t u d e is. F o r I am t h a t finitude t h a t defines a n d t h e r e f o r e

responsabilité p o u r Autrui—pour une autre liberté—

escapes m e . T h a t is w h a t m a k e s ethical intentionality an ex-

la n é g a t i v i t é de c e t t e a n a r c h i e , de ce refus o p p o s é au

posure. There is no realizable relation to the other that w o u l d

present,—à l'apparaître—de l'immémorial, me com-

b e e t h i c a l t h r o u g h a n d t h r o u g h . T h e r e will o n l y h a v e b e e n a

m a n d e et m ' o r d o n n e à Autrui, au premier venu, et

f i c t i o n e d , i m a g i n e d r e l a t i o n — f r a g i l e a s a n i m a g e i s fragile,

m ' a p p r o c h e d e lui, m e l e r e n d p r o c h a i n — s ' é c a r t e a i n s i

u n g r a s p a b l e , u n p o s s e s s i b l e — a reality m a d e u p o f n o t h i n g n e s s .

du néant c o m m e de l'être, p r o v o q u a n t contre m o n gré

O u t s i d e a n y p a r t i c u l a r , defined r e l a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r , t h e r e i s

i et te r e s p o n s a b i l i t é , c ' e s t - à - d i r e me s u b s t i t u a n t c o m m e

this exposure to " n o relation at all" that is an obsession w i t h

( >tage à A u t r u i . T o u t e m o n i n t i m i t é s'investit en c o n t r e -

Autrui a n d t h a t b o t h o r i e n t s a n d e s c a p e s m e . I n t h e e n d t h i s

inon-gré—pour-un-autre. Malgré moi, pour-un-autre—

r e l a t i o n is finitude itself; b u t it is r e a d by L e v i n a s as s o m e t h i n g

v( >ilà la signification p a r excellence et le sens du s o i - m ê m e ,

like e t h i c s .

du se—accusatif ne d é r i v a n t d ' a u c u n n o m i n a t i f — l e fait m ê m e de se retrouver en se p e r d a n t . ]

No

One

Other

6

R a d i c a l d i a c h r o n y (or d i a c h r o n y w i t h o u t a n y s y n c h r o n y ) i Hi i w s us to a p p r o a c h the a n t e r i o r i t y or refus oppose au present

D i a c h r o n y is the refusal of c o n j u n c t i o n , the n o n -

thai defines L e v i n a s ' s e t h i c s . W e m a y c o m p a r e t h i s t o i m p e r i -

t o t a l i z a b l e , a n d , i n this sense, infinite. B u t i n t h e r e -

i I U S s u p e r e g o i c guilt, b u t t h e i n v o l v e m e n t d e s c r i b e d a b o v e d o e s

s p o n s i b i l i t y for t h e o t h e r , for a n o t h e r f r e e d o m , t h e

11« it derive f r o m my p e r s o n a l a n d r e p r e s s e d h i s t o r y of d e s i r e s .

n e g a t i v i t y of this a n a r c h y , this refusal of t h e p r e s e n t ,

I >i.u h r o n y t h a t e l u d e s all s y n c h r o n y is i n s t e a d t h e t r a c e of t h e

of appearing, of the immemorial, c o m m a n d s me a n d

I >ther in m e , b u t " o l d e r " t h a n t h e moi. T h i s is c l e a r l y no e t h -

o r d a i n s m e t o t h e other, t o t h e f i r s t o n e o n t h e s c e n e ,

|< | I m i g h t ever u n d e r s t a n d or t h e o r i z e , for it is a b o v e me a n d

a n d m a k e s m e a p p r o a c h h i m , m a k e s m e his n e i g h b o r .

Dl ior to m e . I am " i t s " e c h o . It o r d e r s me a n d I do n o t e v e n

I

I

V I N A S ' S

I

I I I I

I '.

o b e y it. M o r e precisely, I am ordered, I am oriented, I iim

not yei present, Il Calls a n d il is //, i.e., no o n e t h a t c a n be

s c h e m a t i z e d such that I am obligated to the lirst o t h e r 1 c a n

I- m iu 11

f i n d . O n e m a y say, b e y o n d F r e u d a n d n e a r t o I leidegger, t h a t

in! e h

i t t h r o w s m e , -jects m e , o r casts m e before the o t h e r a n d o t h e r s .

The very a n o n y m i t y ol Autrui is w h a t is so c o m m a n d i n g , so

T h i s e t h i c s , t h e n , i s " o l d e r " t h a n m y self a n d i t i s d i s p r o -

Imperious, so c o n f o u n d i n g . Precisely no one c o m m a n d s m e ,

p o r t i o n a t e to my p o w e r s . It is forever s t r a n g e . I shall n e v e r

n o o n e a i all, and t h e r e f o r e n o o n e f r o m w h o m I c a n s e p a r a t e

h a v e t h e m e a s u r e o f i t n o r e q u a l its d e m a n d . N o m o r a l i t y c a n

myself. N o t h i n g o b l i g a t e s me a n d t h e r e f o r e I c a n n o t d i s t a n c e

c o n t a i n this " o t h e r w i s e " t h a n m e a n d t h e r e f o r e all m y m o r a l -

mysell from o b l i g a t i o n — f o r I am it. I am o r d e r e d , I am o b l i -

an ( )| her b e y o n d my p o w e r s ol iileiil ilical ion. T h e r e (or, //) is thai from which I cannot distinguish myself.

ity is in q u e s t i o n . It d e m a n d s a N i e t z s c h e a n a f f i r m a t i o n : a

q u e d , m s h o r t : / am Autrui. It is b e y o n d my p o w e r to d i s t i n -

going-under or an

Untergeworfenbeit (to c o m b i n e N i e t z s c h e

guish myself from this a n o n y m i t y a n d t h u s t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n —

w i t h H e i d e g g e r for a m o m e n t ) t h a t will b e m y s u b - j e c t i o n t o

the election o r t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n — w i l l a l r e a d y h a v e t a k e n p l a c e .

Autrui. T h i s sub-ject, t o b e s u r e , i s n o t t h e m o d e r n C a r t e s i a n

Il is / w h o calls, t h a t is to say, no one other.

9

s u b j e c t d e l i n e a t e d by H e i d e g g e r , b u t is i n s t e a d a r a d i c a l n a -

You see, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for L e v i n a s is just this u n p o w e r of

scence t h a t w i t h d r a w s from essence a n d i s e x t r a c t e d from b e i n g .

Identification p r i o r t o myself, p r i o r t o a n y d e s i r e , t o a n y m o -

T h i s s u b j e c t i o n g o e s "all t h e w a y t o t h e l a u g h t e r t h a t refuses

live or i n t e r e s t , to a n y e m p i r i c guilt. F o r L e v i n a s I am o n l y

7

l a n g u a g e [ j u s q u ' a u r i r e q u i refuse I e l a n g a g e ] . "

8

Insofar as I am other, o n l y i n s o f a r as I am i d e n t i f i e d / s u b s t i -

E t h i c s , for L e v i n a s , i s a c o m m a n d t h a t c a n n o t b e r e c a l l e d ,

tuted for this o t h e r , this n o o n e , this n o o n e o t h e r t h a n I . H e n c e

t h a t is olamic, forgotten. It is the forgetting that holds me

I lie e n i g m a , t h e " k n o t [ n œ u d ] " in ipseity t h a t p h i l o s o p h y is

hostage to the Other and that constrains me beyond my p o w -

forced to t h i n k .

ers a n d m y i n i t i a t i v e . T h i s f o r g e t t i n g i s b e y o n d m e for t h e

O t h e r , w h o i s n o o n e , n o other, n o o n e o t h e r t h a n m y self

simple reason that it is n o t in my p o w e r to forget (no o n e is

// ell. As L e v i n a s p u t s it: " [ T ] h e p s y c h e in t h e s o u l is t h e o t h e r

" a b l e " t o f o r g e t ; f o r g e t t i n g i s precisely a l a p s e i n o u r a b i l i t y t o

m m e , a m a l a d y of identity, b o t h a c c u s e d a n d self, t h e s a m e

r e m e m b e r ) . T h u s , forgetting takes me outside egoity. It

lor the other, t h e s a m e b y t h e o t h e r [le p s y c h i s m e d e l ' â m e ,

d e n u c l e a t e s t h e e g o , s t r i p p i n g it n u d e . I am o r i g i n a l l y a t h i r d -

« est l ' a u t r e en m o i ; m a l a d i e de l ' i d e n t i t é — a c c u s é e et soi, le

p e r s o n n e u t e r w h o m / forget (because forgetting, o u t s i d e egoity,

même p o u r l ' a u t r e , m ê m e p a r l ' a u t r e ] . "

1 0

T h e O t h e r o b s e s s e s me b e c a u s e I am t h a t

1 1

is a f o r g e t t i n g of t h e one who f o r g e t s ; t h e " s u b j e c t " of t h e

F t h i c s , in L e v i n a s ' s s e n s e , is t h e very e v e n t of t h e self. It

forgetting remains always a n o n y m o u s and is thus preeminently

(ethics, t h e self) h a p p e n s to m e , as m e . T h e self ( a l w a y s al-

f o r g e t t a b l e ) . M y r e l a t i o n t o t h e O t h e r p r i o r t o m y self is, a s i t

icady involved with the Other) comes to me from an outside

w e r e , c o n t r a c t e d b y this o n e w h o i s f o r g o t t e n , a n d w h o for-

all I he m o r e e x t e r i o r in t h a t it p r e c e d e s a n y i n t e r i o r i t y . A ver-

g e t s . A n d t h e r e l a t i o n h e (the a n o n y m o u s il, t h e N e u t e r ) c o n -

tiginous interpellation forms the enigmatic " k n o t " that is the

tracts is likewise forgotten, along with the Other.

.eli or t h e ipse. R a d i c a l l y o u t s i d e , p r i o r to a n y i n s i d e , t h i s

I t calls t h e n f r o m m y p r e h i s t o r y , f r o m b e f o r e m y o r i g i n ,

Identification, this trauma, is just as r a d i c a l l y " f o r g o t t e n . " Yet,

from an immemorial time w h e n I, in my "extreme y o u t h , " am

II is m e : in m e / b e y o n d m e . I incarnate t h a t w h i c h calls me to

.Ì

n

I

I

V I IN A S

S

I'

I I

I

I

i .

s

myself. That is w h y Lévinas can say thai ethics "is the b r e a k u p

.mi " ii is p . H alyzed: always already no l o n g e r a b l e to be t h e r e

of t h e o r i g i n a r y unity of t r a n s c e n d e n t a l a p p e r c e p t i o n , t h a t is,

a n y m o r e . It is, as Levinas tells us (in w o r d s t h a t s h o u l d r e m i n d

it is t h e b e y o n d of e x p e r i e n c e [c'est l ' é c l a t e m e n t de l ' u n i t é

US ol his d e s c r i p t i o n oi the w o r k of a r t ) , a " d e a t h - l i k e p a s s i v -

originaire de Paperception transcendentale—c'est-à-dire l'au-

iiv [une passivité à m o r t | . "

1 2

l s

It " i s " n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h i s

delà de l ' e x p é r i e n c e ] . " 1 a m , as it were, constitutionally un-

M I I r e n d e r o f m a n i f e s t a t i o n . T h e O t h e r o c c u p i e s its p l a c e fully,

a b l e n o t t o a n o n y m o u s l y i n c a r n a t e alterity, a n d h e r e , i n a

insisting o n t h e subject's r e m o v a l f r o m its o w n m a n i f e s t a t i o n .

s t r a n g e w a y , an ethics is i n s c r i b e d — a n d exscribed. T h e self is

For L e v i n a s , t h e self is "a deposing of the ego, less than

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n c a r n a t e . T h e very a n o n y m i t y o f a l t e r i t y — i t s nothingness,

if y o u w i l l — i s

the

impossibility of my

indiffer-

m >il>ing as uniqueness {dé-position du Moi, 16

COmtne unicité]."

le moins que rien

A c c o r d i n g to L e v i n a s , I h a v e a l w a y s al-

ence to it. All t h e ego's p o w e r s of ( o e d i p a l ) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d

ready a b a n d o n e d all for-myselfness. I do n o t first e s t a b l i s h for

c o m p r e h e n s i o n a r e s h a d o w e d b y this a n t e r i o r u n p o w e r .

myself a p l a c e in t h e s u n a n d t h e n , as a m o n a d i c A r c h i m e d e a n

In

Otherwise

than

Being

or Beyond Essence,

Levinas

de-

p o i n t , fall i n w i t h o t h e r s i n o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r . Subjectivity

scribes a subjectivity t h a t precisely w i t h d r a w s f r o m a u t o m a n i -

here is n o t h i n g but a p r i m o r d i a l delay behind the Other. This

festation, a n d h e c h a r a c t e r i z e s this w i t h d r a w a l — o r , a s h e m i g h t

is absolute p a s s i v i t y (i.e., n o t r e l a t i v e to a n y activity, b u t p a s -

say, t h i s h u m i l i t y — a s t h e very autrement qu'être t h a t e t h i c s

sivity a b s o l u t i z e d a s o t h e r t h a n , o r o v e r w h e l m i n g , t h e differ-

" i s . " T h e Levinasian subject eludes t h a t w h i c h is essential to

e n c e b e t w e e n active a n d p a s s i v e ) .

s u b j e c t i v i t y : self-certain p r e s e n c e to self in e i t h e r its C a r t e s i o Heideggerian confinement to (auto)representation,

13

T h e Western metaphysical subject, then, according to

o r its r e -

Levinas, h a d been incorrectly conceptualized. It w a s never

This novel

meant to c o m e to presence, a n d therefore it w a s m e a n t en-

subject of Levinas's w i t h d r a w s , then, from the very c o n c e p t of

tirely for t h e O t h e r w h o shall e t e r n a l l y p r e c e d e it. T h e s u b j e c t

t r e n c h m e n t , after M i c h e l H e n r y , a s a u t o a f f e c t i o n .

14

subjectivity i n t o a n e n i g m a t h a t m a k e s t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e

w o u l d be forever devoted to an obligation t h a t w o u l d forever

word

hypokeimenon,

e x c e e d it, since this o b l i g a t i o n w o u l d define t h e i n f e r i o r i t y i t

underlying, or sub-jacent is that which enters into no present

is. The crisis i n t o w h i c h m o d e r n i t y h a d fallen, t h e crisis of t h e

a t all a n d i s t h u s b e y o n d s p e c u l a t i o n . A s t r a n g e s u b j e c t . A n

a b s e n c e o f f o u n d a t i o n s , t h e discovery t h a t t h e r e w a s n o g r o u n d

i m a g e of t h e s u b j e c t , o n e is t e m p t e d to say. A s t r a n g e s u b j e c t

b e n e a t h o u r feet, w a s n o crisis a t all. I t w a s t h e b e l a t e d d i s c o v -

s t r a n g e t o itself since i t i s a l w a y s o n t h e " h i t h e r s i d e " o f r e p r e -

ery of a beneficence t h a t h a d e n r a p t u r e d us b e y o n d o u r s e l v e s .

s e n t a t i o n , b u t n o t p u r e l y a n d s i m p l y a b s e n t . I t i s its a v e r s i o n

( )ur v e r y i n a b i l i t y t o " u n i t e all t h e f a c u l t i e s " a n d t o p r e s e n t

t o light. I t i s " a n e x t r e m e s h y n e s s , " a s L e v i n a s says s o m e -

o u r s e l v e s to o u r s e l v e s in t h e full light of a k n o w i n g w a s , in

w h e r e . O u t s i d e a n y c o n c e p t o f it, i t i s e x p o s e d , v u l n e r a b l e ,

fact, a " g o l d e n o p p o r t u n i t y " t o o v e r t u r n all t h i n k i n g t h a t origi-

n a k e d . It is who I am a n d it is n o t , or n o t simply, my v u l n e r -

n a t e s subjectivity i n a u t o m a n i f e s t a t i o n o r a u t o a f f e c t i o n .

abusive.

That

which

is,

for

Levinas,

17

ability to d i s a p p e a r a n c e — t o death, to my inability to be there

T h e philosophical obsession w i t h the subject b r o u g h t us,

a n y m o r e . T h i s subject, as L e v i n a s n e v e r tires of telling u s , is

d e s p i t e ourselves a n d despite o u r a n g u i s h , face-to-face, n o t w i t h

n o t d e s t i n e d t o a p p e a r , a n d i s foreign t o a n y " p l a c e i n t h e

o u r s e l v e s , b u t w i t h a n a l t e r i t y t h a t w o u l d infinitely p o s t p o n e

I

I

V I N A S ' S

I

I

III*

S

autonomy. An extreme humility and an unprecedented ethics

ol a persecution that paralyses any a s s u m p t i o n that

h a d r u i n e d the g r a n d e p o c h of the Subject a n d its maniacal

i mild awaken il so thai il w o u l d posit itself for-itself.

s t r i v i n g after itself. O n l y t h e l a n g u a g e of ethics w o u l d be e q u a l

I his passivity is thai ol an a t t a c h m e n t that h a s a l r e a d y

t o t h i s a b y s s i n t o w h i c h t h e h u m a n sciences h a d fallen. Even

been m a d e , as something irreversibly p a s t , p r i o r to all

the language of psychoanalysis, which promised a C o p e r n i -

memory a n d recall. It w a s m a d e in an i r r é c u p é r a b l e

c a n r e v o l u t i o n t h a t w o u l d u n d e r m i n e all t h i n k i n g f o u n d e d i n

n i n e w h i c h the p r e s e n t , r e p r e s e n t e d i n recall, d o e s n o t

a C a r t e s i a n Cogito, h a d s l i p p e d i n t o m y t h a n d h a d r e m a i n e d

e q u a l , in a t i m e of b i r t h or c r e a t i o n , of w h i c h n a t u r e

i m p r i s o n e d b y a classical s c h e m a o f t h e subject. A s N a n c y

or c r e a t i o n r e t a i n s a t r a c e , u n c o n v e r t i b l e i n t o a

a n d Lacoue-Labarthe (and later Borch-Jacobsen) have m a d e

memory.

clear, t h e ego's s h a d o w r e m a i n e d , i n p s y c h o a n a l y s i s f r o m F r e u d to L a c a n , a n o t h e r ego behind the ego, a n d below the subject

[Le s o i - m ê m e ne p e u t p a s se faire, il est déjà fait de

t h e r e l u r k e d a n o t h e r s u b j e c t — o f d e s i r e (or even, of a desire to

passivité a b s o l u e , et, d a n s ce sens, victime d ' u n e

be a subject).

18

O n l y t h e l a n g u a g e o f ethics w o u l d b e a b l e t o

persécution paralysant toute assumption qui p o u r r a i t

say t h a t t h a t w h i c h p h i l o s o p h y w a s u n a b l e t o p r e s e n t t o itself

s'éveiller en lui p o u r le p o s e r pour soi, p a s s i v i t é de

w a s n o t m e a n t t o b e p r e s e n t e d a t all. T h e n e w ethical s u b j e c t

l ' a t t a c h e m e n t déjà n o u é e c o m m e i r r é v e r s i b l e m e n t

w o u l d r e m a i n offstage, in t h e s h a d o w s , en deqa du temps, a n d

passée, en deçà de toute m é m o i r e , de t o u t rappel.

w o u l d suffer affectively all t h a t t h e e g o w o u l d c o n t r a c t i n all

Nouée dans un temps irrécupérable que le présent,

its a d v e n t u r e s in t h e w o r l d . E t h i c a l subjectivity is infinite v u l -

représenté dans le rappel n'égale pas, dans un temps

n e r a b i l i t y . T h e a b s e n c e of f o u n d a t i o n w a s in fact a l r e a d y a

de la naissance ou de la c r é a t i o n d o n t n a t u r e ou c r é a t u r e

r a p p o r t . T h e r e w a s a l r e a d y a n e x p o s u r e t o t h e O t h e r inter-

garde une trace, inconvertible en souvenir.]

19

r u p t i n g a n y b e g i n n i n g . A g a i n s t all o u r e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d p r e j u d i c e s , t h e s u b j e c t w a s n o t a g r o u n d a t all. I t w a s u n p o w e r a n d

The self, e n i g m a t i c a l l y , " s u f f e r s " itself. It is a w o u n d t h a t

w e a k n e s s , a n d this is t h e c a s e for a s i m p l e a n d even b a n a l

d o e s not heal. Before myself, p r i o r to a n y desire to b e , a n t e r i o r

r e a s o n : t h e self d o e s n o t f o r m itself. I t h a s n o ability a t all

lo any objectivity, to a n y d i s t a n c e or a n y t i m e — l i t e r a l l y ex

until the other a n d others intervene a n d bring it into exist-

nihilo—the self h a p p e n s to m e . T h e self, t h e i p s e , t h e who t h a t

e n c e . T h e self i s a n a b s o l u t e d e p e n d e n c y , a n d its d e p e n d e n c y

I am (as o p p o s e d to t h e w h a t ) is formed. It is m a d e , f a s h i o n e d ,

is

b e g o t t e n , willed, fictioned. U s i n g t h e l a n g u a g e of L e v i n a s , it is

an i n e x h a u s t i b l e potentia.

w< i i m d e d a n d p e r s e c u t e d . T h e O t h e r h a s access to me b e f o r e I d o . In-myself, I am a w e a k n e s s a n d a d e p e n d e n c y . A s u p p l e The

Self

m e n t , in D e r r i d a ' s sense, is r e q u i r e d for me to be a s o m e o n e a n d t h u s t h e subject c a n n o t b e t h o u g h t o u t s i d e différance. T h e

T h e oneself c a n n o t f o r m itself; i t i s a l r e a d y f o r m e d

lupplement is a t r a u m a that precedes the constituted ego a n d

w i t h a n a b s o l u t e passivity. I n t h i s sense i t i s t h e v i c t i m

t h e r e f o r e p r e c e d e s all m e m o r y a n d r e p r e s s i o n . A " f o r g e t t i n g "

L E V I N A S

precedes all remembering and .1 contact with the outside p r e c e d e s all interiority. The ego proper—the formed, h o u n d e d , h e a l t h y , a r t i c u l a t e d i d e n t i t y — i s n o t its o w n . It receives itself f r o m w i t h o u t itself (in e v e r y s e n s e ) . A n t e r i o r t o b e i n g - f o r m e d ,

s

I

I

I I

I 1

S

I

)

for Ins politics also relies on a p r i m o r d i a l " t h e f t . " ) W h a t " r e m a i n s " o f m e a l t e r this t r a u m a i s a n e x c e p t i o n a l o b l i g a t i o n t o t h e O t h e r w h o m 1, in fact, i n c a r n a t e . O n l y a b r u s q u e r e s e n t m e n t a g a i n s t t h e very m o t i f o f p r i m o r d i a l passivity c o u l d p o s -

it is n o t . It is u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , p u r e e x t e r i o r i t y — n o t even t h e

sibly i g n o r e w h a t is in fact a c o m m o n p l a c e of h u m a n e x i s t -

f r a g m e n t a t i o n of an u n k n o w n e m b o d i m e n t . It is It—no o n e ,

ence. No one is b o r n into the world from o u t of one's o w n

n o t h i n g . Its self is b o r r o w e d , e a t e n , a b s o r b e d f r o m o t h e r s . Its

self.

self proper is n o t its o w n , for in-itself it is a " n o n - q u i d d i t y , no

This enigmatic birth, incarnation, and involvement with

one, clothed in purely b o r r o w e d being, which m a k e s it a n a m e -

o t h e r s p r i o r t o myself, this v e r t i g i n o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , a c c o u n t s

less s i n g u l a r i t y by c o n f e r r i n g on it a r o l e [ n o n - q u i d d i t é —

for, a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e insistence o f a n a r c h y i n all h u -

p e r s o n n e — r e v ê t u e d ' u n ê t r e d e p u r e m p r u n t , qui m a s q u e s a

m a n intersubjectivity a n d also the hyperbologic t h a t governs

T h e oneself

t h e ego's s u p e r e g o i c guilt. T h a t is, since it is precisely " m y -

itself i s n o o n e ( s i n g u l a r a n d u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ) w h o i s s o m e -

self" t h a t I o w e to t h e O t h e r a n d o t h e r s , o n l y complete b e i n g -

o n e ( a self, b u t a b o r r o w e d o r s t o l e n o n e — a s o m e o n e O t h e r

f o r - t h e - o t h e r (or, as L e v i n a s s o m e t i m e s calls it, " m a t e r n i t y " )

w h o for t h a t r e a s o n s i n k s i n t o i m m e m o r i a l i t y i n t h e p r e - h i s -

c a n a n s w e r t o t h e d e m a n d " i n s i d e " m e . But a s i t will a l w a y s

t o r y of t h e s u b j e c t ) . Autrement qu'être is t h e b e i n g - f o r m e d , or

b e / w h o a m f o r - t h e - o t h e r , a r e m a i n d e r o r t r a c e o f for-

s i n g u l a r i t é s a n s n o m e n lui c o n f é r a n t u n r ô l e ] . "

2 0

t h e v u l n e r a b i l i t y t o t h e O t h e r , " o l d e r " t h a n t h e e g o a n d al-

myselfness i s u n e r a d i c a b l e , n o m a t t e r h o w n o b l e o r "selfless"

w a y s j u s t p r i o r t o a n y self-presence. B e i n g - c r e a t e d i s t h e in-

I t r y t o b e . H e n c e , " t h e m o r e just I a m , t h e m o r e guilty I a m

c a r n a t i o n t h a t is t h e self. T h e self d o e s n o t identify, it is i d e n -

[plus je suis j u s t e — p l u s je suis c o u p a b l e ] . "

tified w i t h a n identification t h a t r e m a i n s a l w a y s j u s t a n t e r i o r

has deconstructed the mysterious authority of Freudian

t o t h e self. T h e self d o e s n o t c o n s i s t o f t h a t t o w h i c h i t a g r e e s

s u p e r e g o i c g u i l t b y p l a c i n g i t o u t s i d e its m y t h i c o e d i p a l t r i a n -

(as C. S. Peirce a r g u e s ) . It c o n s i s t s of its a b s o l u t e l y p a s s i v e

g u l a t i o n . I t i s n o t s o m e f i g u r e , s o m e p e r s o n , f r o m t h e subject's

b e i n g - f o r m e d w h i c h m a k e s p o s s i b l e its ( a m b i g u o u s ) a b i l i t y t o

past that has internally modeled a n d modified the subject.

identify w i t h o t h e r s a n d a l s o t o i m i t a t e t h e m .

L e v i n a s i a n Autrui will n e v e r h a v e b e e n identified yet will never

It is by w a y of this " k n o t " in subjectivity t h a t L e v i n a s is a b l e t o s p e a k t h e l a n g u a g e o f e t h i c s a n d say t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i s i n c a r n a t e d as e t h i c a l , w h e t h e r we like it or n o t . Subjectivity is responsibility-for-the-other and the Other is involved in subjectivity like a p l a y of l i m i t s . T h r o u g h this stricto sensu u n t h i n k a b l e e n i g m a , h e c a n say t h a t t h e h u m a n i s n o t a t all wolfish b u t is, f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g , f o r - t h e - o t h e r b e c a u s e its self c o m e s from t h e o t h e r w h o t h u s r o b s t h e subject o f all for-itselfness. ( K e e p this i n m i n d a s w e c o n c l u d e t h e c h a p t e r o n A g a m b e n ,

2 1

In his w a y , L e v i n a s

be w i t h o u t identity, for I am Autrui myself, a n d o u t s i d e t h i s identification, I am N O T H I N G . N o t even desire. A n d theref o r e , I a m , in myself, a n x i o u s l y u n f i g u r a b l e a n d a n - a r c h i c . S t r a n g e l y , p a r a d o x i c a l l y , b u t perfectly r i g o r o u s l y , my v e r y self i s b e y o n d m e , i s w i t h o u t e s s e n c e , i s o t h e r w i s e t h a n (my) b e i n g . T h e self is faire: b o r n , b e g o t t e n , i n c a r n a t e d - a s - m o d e l e d , copied, echoed, repeated. An a n o n y m o u s mimesis precedes a n d p e r m a n e n t l y e r o d e s all identity. M y b e i n g i s n o t m y o w n . It is b e i n g - p o s s e s s e d , b e i n g - c a s t (in b o t h s e n s e s : like a die is

I I V I N A S ' S

E I

11

I

S

I

t h r o w n , anil as it cast into s o n i c role in a drama). Usui)', the

c o n s c i o u s ) b e g a n to r e s e m b l e n o t h i n g so m u c h as a c r o w d , a

l a n g u a g e of H e i d e g g e r , we w o u l d say that, lor L e v i n a s , Mit-

p r i m o r d i a l a n a r c h i c b a n d . T h e id, h a v i n g n o b e i n g o f its o w n ,

sein is rigorously c o r r e l a t i v e w i t h

Da-sein a n d Da-sein's a n x i -

like the c r o w d o r h o r d e , i s a l w a y s a l r e a d y in-itself o u t s i d e -

ety ( w h i c h s u b t e n d s all its o n t i c affects) is precisely its l o s t n e s s

itself. It is f o r m l e s s n e s s "itself" a n d it is a t h r e a t of f o r m l e s s -

in das Man s i n c e , o u t s i d e its l o s t n e s s , it is n o t h i n g .

n e s s , a t h r e a t of t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e social b o n d .

I a m h a u n t e d , a l t e r e d — b u t b y n o o n e , n o father, n o m o t h e r .

W h a t B o r c h - j a c o b s e n c o n c l u d e s , o r forces F r e u d t o c o n -

I a m h a u n t e d b y n o o n e o t h e r t h a n myself. T h i s i s m y u n -

c l u d e , is t h a t It (the id, t h e u n c o n s c i o u s ) is n o t a n o t h e r s u b j e c t

g r o u n d e d , a b y s s a l , e n d l e s s passivity. M y self c o m e s t o m e a s

(of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ) b u r i e d i n r e p r e s s i o n a n d s p e a k i n g i n

t h e very e v e n t o f m y b e i n g a n d t h e r e f o r e , a s c a s t , I a m e x -

hieroglyphs, but is instead nothing other than the nascent

p o s e d t o , a n d p e r m e a t e d by, alterity. M i s s i n g f r o m m e , t h e

i n c o m p l e t i o n a n d t h e original passivity o f t h e e g o itself. H e n c e -

h o l e i n m y b e i n g t h a t H e g e l o - K o j e v e a n p s y c h o a n a l y s i s after

forth, he concludes, there could be no rigorous Freudian dis-

L a c a n insists o n , is n o t , as is said, my self. T h e self is Other,

t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l a n d social p s y c h o l o g y , b e t w e e n

n o t l a c k i n g . W h a t i s " l a c k i n g , " i f t h a t i s t h e w o r d for it, i s t h e

S a m e a n d O t h e r . T o use t h e l a n g u a g e o f L e v i n a s , t h e n o n p l a c e

for-itselfness p r o p e r to t h e self. T h e self is an o t h e r (je est un

(non-lieu) w h e r e I e n c o u n t e r t h e O t h e r (Autrui) in a p a s t i m -

autre) a n d t h e r e f o r e is n e v e r for-itself, b u t is "despite-itself-

m e m o r i a l , o u t s i d e c o n c e p t s , is precisely myself itself.

for-another."

This does not m e a n that the O t h e r has been reduced to

W e m a y r e c o g n i z e i n this f o r m i d a b l e e n i g m a t h e i n s p i r a -

the Same. W h a t Levinas argues, and w h a t Borch-jacobsen

tion for M i k k e l B o r c h - J a c o b s e n ' s i n c e s s a n t c o r r e c t i o n o f

b r i l l i a n t l y e x p l o i t s in his r e a d i n g of F r e u d , is t h a t t h e S a m e is

F r e u d ' s n o t i o n of p r i m a r y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . In The Freudian Sub-

n o l o n g e r itself. I t i s " i n q u e s t i o n . " L e v i n a s h a s a l l o w e d u s t o

ject, B o r c h - j a c o b s e n is a b l e to p o i n t o u t , by i d e n t i f y i n g i n n u -

r e a d t h e S a m e a s p u r e r a d i c a l e x p o s u r e t o alterity, a s infil-

m e r a b l e a p o r i a s i n F r e u d ' s logic a n d a n a l y s e s , t h a t , d e s p i t e

t r a t e d b y alterity. I n his i n t r o d u c t i o n t o B o r c h - J a c o b s e n ' s b o o k ,

the s t u b b o r n l y held n o t i o n of an absolute Narcissus, there is

F r a n c o i s R o u s t a n g says, concisely, t h a t subjectivity i s r a d i c a l l y

no s u b j e c t prior to " i t s " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . T h e e g o itself t h e n

a l t e r e d a n d " i s n e v e r itself e x c e p t b e c a u s e i t i s a l t e r e d , b e -

w o u l d b e b o t h a n d n e i t h e r itself a n d other, or, a s B o r c h - J a c o b -

c a u s e it is o t h e r to itself, b e c a u s e it is its o w n o t h e r , a l t h o u g h

sen so nicely p u t s it, w o u l d be a point d'autrui: a h y p n o t i c a n d

i t i s n e v e r a b l e t o r e p r e s e n t t h a t o t h e r t o itself."

24

A n d this will

2 2

forever p r e c e d e all its dialectical a d v e n t u r e s . O u t s i d e its b i r t h ,

Hence my undecidability with regard to myself—my debts a n d

it is n o t an i m m a n e n c e invisible to itself (as in a H e g e l i a n f o r m u -

m y guilt, m y p a r a n o i a a n d m y e n d l e s s rivalries w i t h o t h e r s .

l a t i o n ) . T h e self i s n o o n e , n o t h i n g — a l r e a d y b o t h w i t h a n d w i t h -

Borch-jacobsen is able to s h o w that t h a t at w h i c h p s y c h o -

o u t r a p p o r t w i t h the Other. As s u p p l e m e n t e d , t h e self is s c h e m a -

a n a l y s i s a i m e d — t h e i n d i v i d u a l , t h e e g o — w a s w i t h o u t a self

t i z e d , o r d e r e d , c a t e g o r i z e d as f o r - t h e - o t h e r or as (the) rapport

somnambulistic contraction of otherness into sameness.

o f its o w n , w a s " w i t h o u t q u a l i t i e s . "

23

The ego had no being of

itself. B u t , this r a p p o r t is a c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h no o n e since

its o w n a n d this led B o r c h - j a c o b s e n t o l e a d F r e u d i n e l u c t a b l y

t h e O t h e r is i n c a r n a t e d in t h e self, as t h e self. N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e

f r o m i n d i v i d u a l to social p s y c h o l o g y . F o r It (the id, t h e u n -

r a p p o r t r e m a i n s . It is n e v e r r e p r e s s e d . It is i m a g i n a r y .

l i v l N A s ' s ETHICS So, il Levinas has given us a n y t h i n g to think u is this: there

Subjected to the Other) is a d i v i d i n g ol t h e past from the f u t u r e

i s n o sociality, n o c o m m u n i t y , n o c o m m u n i c a t i o n , n o d i a l o g u e

bin w i t h o u t p a s s i n g i n t o a p r e s e n t . Subjectivity, in L e v i n a s ' s

n o r dialectic t h a t is unaffected by a n o t h i n g n e s s , an a n o n y m -

s e n s e , i s t h a t w h i c h w i t h d r a w s f r o m " b e t w e e n " p a s t a n d fu-

ity, a d i s s y m m e t r y a n d h e n c e a d i s p r o p o r t i o n , a p a n i c , a rest-

t u r e . It is t i m e w i t h o u t a n y " n o w " p o i n t , if t h a t is i m a g i n a b l e .

lessness or a d e l i r i u m at t h e h e a r t of w h i c h t h e r e is a s u b j e c t in

I n s t e a d of a " n o w " p o i n t t h e r e is a point d'autrui—a p o i n t of

une

i n s t a b i l i t y a n d d i s s o l u t i o n . Subjectivity, i n t h i s s e n s e , i s t h e

passivité à

mort.

b r e a k d o w n o f t h e difference b e t w e e n S a m e a n d O t h e r , t h e b r e a k d o w n o f intersubjectivity, a n d a p r o x i m i t y t o t h e O t h e r Impasse

o u t s i d e of, or e v a c u a t e d of, a n y p r e s e n c e . T h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y of

As a r e s u l t of its o r i g i n a r y passivity, of its b e i n g

indifference we s p o k e of earlier is t h e fact t h a t , in a r e a l c a s e ,

f o r m e d , t h e self is d e l a y e d " b e h i n d " itself. B u t , as it is n o t h i n g

w e c a n n o t d o u b t t h a t a n o t h e r p e r s o n i s i n p a i n (to b o r r o w

o t h e r t h a n its passivity, we m u s t c o n c e i v e of t h e self as d e l a y

f r o m W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s w o r k for a m o m e n t ) . It is a fact t h a t gives

itself, o r — t i m e . L i k e t h e w o r k o f a r t , t h e t e m p o r a l i t y o f t h e

n o i n f o r m a t i o n , n o c o n t e n t , n o ethical f o r m u l a . I t i s a n affect,

self is w i t h o u t a p r e s e n t . As m o d e l e d or d o u b l e d or e c h o e d

b u t an affect w i t h o u t a self, for I am t h e o t h e r f r o m w h o s e

f r o m t h e O t h e r , t h e self is " o r i g i n a l l y " a r e c u r r e n c e to self.

suffering I c a n n o t d i s t a n c e myself by d o u b t i n g . B u t I do n o t

T h e d e l a y is, i n t h e l a n g u a g e o f e t h i c s , a n o r i g i n a r y politesse,

identify w i t h t h a t sufferer as s o m e o n e in p a r t i c u l a r . I identify,

o r a n " a f t e r y o u , sir." T h e self i s b e l a t e d , b e h i n d t h e O t h e r

v e r y m u c h to t h e c o n t r a r y , i n s o f a r as t h e sufferer is not o t h e r -

a n d a n s w e r i n g t o t h e O t h e r w h o p r e c e d e s it. E x n i h i l o I r e -

t h a n - I , is not a l t e r e g o . T h a t is, I identify i n s o f a r as t h e o t h e r

s p o n d t o t h e O t h e r b e f o r e even h e a r i n g t h e O t h e r , b e f o r e r e c -

i s precisely n o o n e i n p a r t i c u l a r , i s b e y o n d himself a n d i s n o t

ognizing the O t h e r as other. I am thus indistinguishable from

e q u a l to his suffering. / identify with the other precisely to the

that Other.

extent

that

the

other

is

anonymous,

and

thus

I

identify

with

In spite of w h a t Levinas says here a n d there, there c a n be

no one. It is o n l y w i t h g r e a t difficulty t h a t we c a n say, w i t h

n o r e v e l a t i o n o f this " h i t h e r s i d e " o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h e p a s -

Levinas, t h a t an "ethics" or a "hither side" is revealed here,

sivity a n d v u l n e r a b i l i t y L e v i n a s insists o n a r e o t h e r t h a n I ,

t h a t a responsibility or an obligation is born here. We can just

other t h a n something that is in my power to accomplish. I can

a s easily say t h a t n o t h i n g i s r e v e a l e d h e r e . T h a t w h i c h t h e

n o m o r e f o r m m y self t h a n I c a n f o r g e t m y self. L i k e forget-

sufferer a n d I s h a r e or h a v e in c o m m o n — o u r " c o m m o n s u b -

t i n g , b e i n g - f o r m e d is a l a p s e in p o w e r . T h i s l a p s i n g is t h e radi-

jectivity" as Bataille p u t s it (or o u r b e i n g - i n - c o m m o n , as N a n c y

cal d i a c h r o n y o f w h i c h w e h a v e a l r e a d y s p o k e n : d i a c h r o n y

says)—is precisely N O T H I N G . N o b o n d . N o ethics. N o m o r a l s .

w i t h o u t s y n c h r o n y or, t o say t h e s a m e t h i n g , d i a c h r o n y a s

A n d it is precisely to N O T H I N G t h a t I c a n n o t r e m a i n indif-

p e r p e t u a l d e f e c t i o n f r o m t h e p r e s e n t . T h e self a s t h i s d e l a y i s

ferent. T h e other, the sufferer, c a n d r a g m e , despite myself, i n t o

s u b j e c t e d t o t h e O t h e r a n d t h u s c a n n o t resist b e i n g - a l t e r e d

t h a t N O T H I N G t h a t w e " s h a r e . " T h e affect t h e n , w o u l d b e ,

s i n c e i t i s n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n b e i n g - a l t e r e d . Subjectivity ( b e i n g

a s B l a n c h o t p u t s it, a n " e x p e r i e n c e o f n o n e x p e r i e n c e , " o r a n

I 11

1

I. !•• v i

\\ T '

i n c o m p l e t e e x p e r i e n c e , or an e x p e r i e n c e <>l the n o n c o m p l e t i o n t h a t I myself a m , t h a t t h e self is. F o r L e v i n a s , this i n c o m p l e t e n e s s is m y s e l f — o r is given to m e a s t h a t w h i c h s i n g u l a r i z e s m e a n d calls m e t o myself a n d t o m y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I t calls m e , i n t h e e n d , t o " t h e m a t i z a t i o n , t h o u g h t , history, a n d inscription [thématisation, pensée, histoire et é c r i t u r e ] . "

2 5

I n o t h e r w o r d s , like t h e self, w i t h t h e

self, as t h e self, ethics is b o r n ex n i h i l o — f r o m its o w n a b s e n c e .

IN A

I I III s

s•s

I

itself. The subjecl is radically no o n e , is i m a g i n a r y , is " c l o t h e d in purely borrowed b e i n g , " or is g i v e n , as L a c o u e - L a b a r t h e says of Da-sein, " t h e gift of n o t h i n g . "

2 6

T h e s u b j e c t is w i t h o u t

q u a l i t i e s , b l a n k , a n d t h u s infinitely u n s t a b l e . A t t h e s a m e t i m e , as no o n e , the subject is deeply panicked, p a r a n o i d , a m a n of c r o w d s , a t h o m e n o w h e r e — f o r t h e O t h e r h a s stolen h i m f r o m himself a t b i r t h . I a m a n d I a m n o t w h o I a m . I n s h o r t , w e c o m e very c l o s e h e r e t o m a d n e s s , o r s o m e t h i n g like m a d n e s s .

Ethics is b o r n from the absence of a n y p r o p e r subjective r e l a -

E t h i c s will h a v e b e e n b o r n w h e r e i t w a s d i s s o l v e d : i n p r i -

t i o n . I t i s b o r n from anxiety. F r o m finitude. T h e r e i s N O T H I N G

m a l (a)sociality w h e r e " e a c h o n e i s t h e o t h e r a n d n o o n e i s

t h a t f o u n d s t h e social o r d e r a n d t h a t i s t h e i n c e s s a n t m u r m u r -

himself," as H e i d e g g e r d e s c r i b e s das Man. In a s e n s e , L e v i n a s

ing I " h e a r " calling me o u t of n o t h i n g to be s o m e o n e . Ethics is

w i s h e s t o say t h a t this i s o u r " p r o p e r " s t a t e : " P a r a d o x i c a l l y i t

nothing and hence it is disproportionate, vertiginous, a n d anx-

i s q u a alienus—foreigner a n d o t h e r — t h a t m a n i s n o t alien-

ious. This nothing m u r m u r s to me through the Other from

a t e d [ P a r a d o x a l e m e n t , c'est e n t a n t q u ' a l i e n u s — é t r a n g e r e t

w h o m I a m u n a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h myself a n d t h i s b l i n d r a p -

a u t r e — q u e l'homme n'est pas aliéné]."

2 7

For Levinas, being is

p o r t reveals (without revealing) a for-the-other-for-nothing,

b e i n g - c a s t , b e i n g - e n r o l l e d , b e i n g - d r a m a t i z e d . Being is (simul-

o r a g r a t u i t y , a n a b s u r d i t y , o r a n i n s a n e l a u g h t e r , t h a t lacer-

t a n e o u s l y ) " o t h e r w i s e t h a n b e i n g . " Being-cast i s i n s p i r a t i o n

a t e s t h e for-itself a n d e x p o s e s i t t o n o t h i n g , t o d e a t h — t o t h a t

b y t h e o t h e r a n d d e l a y b e h i n d t h e p r e s e n t : a d i a c h r o n y . Be-

a b s o l u t e p a s s i v i t y I s h a r e w i t h t h e o t h e r . For, I am t h a t O t h e r

tween

w h o i s t h e n n o o n e o t h e r o r n o o t h e r t h a n myself. I n s o f a r a s I

formed, being-ficted—the (imaginary) space of literature, in

am identifying with no one, I t o o am no one. T h u s , / am n o t

other

e t h i c a l , J d o n o t s u b s t i t u t e . T h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f indifference

strictly c o r r e l a t i v e . T h e r e i s n o c h r o n o l o g y , n o fall f r o m g r a c e

in t h e scene of suffering is a l s o an i n a b i l i t y to say I.

i n t o t h r o w n n e s s (or, i n t o a r t i c u l a t i o n ) . M y " f a l l e n n e s s " i n t o

T h e e v e n t o f ethics t h a t h a p p e n s t o m e i s a l s o t h e interr u p t i o n of ethics. I can no m o r e reveal or represent this ethics t h a n I c a n i m a g i n e myself d e a d o r a b s e n t f r o m myself. E t h i c s , the response to a n o t h e r in pain, is a repetition of my b i r t h — a r e p e t i t i o n of t h a t r e p e t i t i o n t h a t I am, of t h e e c h o t h e self is. L e v i n a s i a n e t h i c s i s t h e " p r e s e n t a t i o n " o f myself t o myself a s r e p e t i t i o n (i.e., a s u n p r e s e n t a b l e ) . T h e i m p a s s e w e w i s h t o d e scribe, t h e n , is my b e c o m i n g self or my c o m i n g to myself as repetit i o n or r e c u r r e n c e . T h e subject is n o t h i n g o u t s i d e of its r e t u r n to

Geworfenheit words.

and

Verfallenheit

Geworfenheit

and

is

being-cast,

Verfallenheit

are,

being-

therefore,

t h e " t h e y " is t h e r e v e l a t i o n of t h e nullity I a m . T h u s , b e i n g c a s t , i n a c e r t a i n s e n s e , p r e c e d e s b o t h fallenness a n d t h r o w n n e s s . I t " t h r o w s " m e i n t o t h r o w n n e s s , o r a r t i c u l a t e s it. Fallenness is always already articulated as t h r o w n n e s s . B u t " o t h e r w i s e t h a n b e i n g " i s n o t , o r n o t strictly, e t h i c a l . It is a l s o t h e s u s p e n s i o n of e t h i c s . T h e r e is no " s c e n e " of e n i g m a t i c r a p p o r t t h a t c a n b e d i s p l a y e d b e f o r e us. Da-sein a n d t h e L e v i n a s i a n s u b j e c t d o n o t s i m p l y " f a l l , " t h e y a r e vertigin o u s l y a r t i c u l a t e d , singled o u t , a n d elected.

LÉVINAS'S ETHICS

51

given US K» think, tli.it w h i c h a n y e t h i c s o u t s i d e e s s e n c e d e Ethique

mands.

T h e reality of t h e o t h e r p e r s o n , of Autrui, is, as

G i o r g i o A g a m b e n p u t s i t this w a y :

L e v i n a s says o f P r o u s t ' s A l b e r t i n e , m a d e u p o f t i m e , o f e v a nescence, if you like—of nothingness. T h a t w h i c h is other in

T h e fact t h a t m u s t c o n s t i t u t e t h e p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e

t h e o t h e r p e r s o n i s o t h e r n e s s "itself": t h e r a d i c a l t e m p o r a l i t y

for a n y d i s c o u r s e o n e t h i c s i s t h a t t h e r e i s n o e s s e n c e ,

of a d i a c h r o n y w i t h o u t s y n c h r o n i c h o r i z o n , or, in a w o r d ,

no historical or spiritual vocation, no biological des-

dying. Autrui is c o n s t i t u t e d as a n d by t h a t w h i c h o n l y e s c a p e s .

t i n y t h a t h u m a n s m u s t e n a c t o r realize. T h a t i s t h e

B e c a u s e o f t h i s , n o t i n s p i t e o f it, w e c o m e t o b e i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e o t h e r i n t i m a t e l y a s other, o u t s i d e o f a n y c o n c e p t o r t h o u g h t of t h e o t h e r .

o n l y r e a s o n w h y s o m e t h i n g like e t h i c s c a n e x i s t , b e c a u s e i t i s clear t h a t i f h u m a n s w e r e t o b e this o r t h a t s u b s t a n c e , t h i s o r t h a t destiny, n o e t h i c a l e x p e r i e n c e

In the writings of E m m a n u e l Levinas the language of ethics h a s c o m e t o d e s i g n a t e ( o n e i s t e m p t e d t o say, h a s c o m e t o

w o u l d be possible—there w o u l d only be tasks to be done.

t h e r e s c u e of) a singular, c o u n t e r u n i v e r s a l , n o n i n t e n t i o n a l ( t h a t i s t o say, a i m l e s s , p u r p o s e l e s s , n o n c o n s c i o u s ) r e l a t i o n w i t h a n d

[Il f a t t o da cui d e v e p a r t i r e o g n i d i s c o r s o s u l l ' e t i c a è

response to the other person as other (and n o t as alter ego,

c h e l ' u o m o n o n è n e h a d a essere o d a r e a l i z z a r e a l c u n a

a n o t h e r v e r s i o n of t h e s a m e , n o r , for t h a t m a t t e r , as a self at

essenza, alcuna vocazione storica o spirituale, alcun

all). T h i s s t r a n g e ethics ( a n d it is q u i t e precisely s t r a n g e — i t is

destino biologico. Solo per questo qualcosa c o m e

a s i n g u l a r r e l a t i o n , u n i q u e , u n r e c o g n i z a b l e , a n d , like t h e r e -

u n ' e t i c a p u ò esistere: p o i c h é è c h i a r o c h e s e l ' u o m o

sult of a dice t h r o w , d o e s n o t r e l a t e to o t h e r r e l a t i o n s ) is r e a l -

fosse o avesse da essere q u e s t a o quella s o s t a n z a , q u e s t o

ized as a " s u b s t i t u t i o n of me for t h e o t h e r s [ s u b s t i t u t i o n de

o q u e l d e s t i n o , n o n vi s a r e b b e a l c u n a e s p e r i e n z a etica

moi aux autres],"

2 8

and it can only be included in any moral-

possible—vi sarebbero solo compiti da realizzare.]

29

ity, politics, or c o m m u n i t y w h a t e v e r as excluded (or, as L e v i n a s p u t s it, a s " b e t r a y e d " ) . T h i s m e a n s t h a t a n y p r o p e r r e l a t i o n -

T h e " p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e " h e r e i s i n fact t h e a b s e n c e o f

ship with a n o t h e r already betrays w h a t is "essentially" a r a p -

anything t h a t w o u l d constitute a point of d e p a r t u r e , w h i c h is

p o r t w i t h o u t essence o r a n i m p r o p r i e t y t h a t precedes a n d m a k e s

w h y e t h i c s will a l w a y s h a v e b e e n , a s A g a m b e n p u t s it, " s o m e -

possible (while at the same time m a k i n g questionable) any

t h i n g like e t h i c s . " T h e r e will be s o m e t h i n g like e t h i c s b e c a u s e

r e l a t i o n s h i p w h a t e v e r . T h a t w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e s ethics, for

t h e r e will b e n o e t h i c s proper. T h e " e t h i c a l e x p e r i e n c e , " t o b e

L e v i n a s , i s t h e " l o s s " o f p r o p r i e t y — o r its a b s e n c e , o r its p r e s -

p o s s i b l e a t all, p r e s u p p o s e s n o e s s e n c e n o r a n y d e s t i n y t h a t

e n c e - a s - b e t r a y e d . It is a loss t h a t p r e c e d e s t h e r e b e i n g a n y -

w o u l d h a v e this o r t h a t d e s i g n a t i o n . T h a t i s t o say, t h e " e t h i -

t h i n g to lose, or it is a r e l a t i o n " w i t h " loss t h a t s u g g e s t s t h e

cal e x p e r i e n c e , " o u t s i d e e s s e n c e , will b e a n e x p e r i e n c e o f a n

very possibility any relation whatever. In any case, it is i m p o s -

improper, incoherent, indeterminate obligation. Outside any

sible t o say s i m p l y a n d u n e q u i v o c a l l y t h a t w h i c h L e v i n a s h a s

p r o p e r o r a u t h e n t i c r e l a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r , t h e very p r e s e n c e o f

i i vi the o t h e r p e r s o n will he d r a i n e d oi s u b s t a n c e , and the subject

N A

s•s

I

i

M

11 s

gular relation ( r e s e m b l i n g ethics and r e n d e r i n g e t h i c s a r e s e m -

will find itself in a s i n g u l a r r e l a t i o n to t h e O t h e r w i t h o u t m e a -

b l a n c e to itself, that is, d e n u c l e a t i n g it of essence) is a n a r c h y —

sure or c o m p a r i s o n . At the limit of any c o m m u n i t y or any

the coming (apart) of any c o m m u n i t y whatever. It h a p p e n s to

relation whatever, Levinas wishes to reveal a p r o x i m i t y t h a t

u s w h e n , for e x a m p l e , a n o t h e r p e r s o n i s i n p a i n , o r for t h a t

c a n n o t b e m a d e p r e s e n t , b u t t h a t I c a n n o t d i v o r c e myself f r o m .

m a t t e r , i n ecstasy. I t h a p p e n s w h e n a n o t h e r p e r s o n i s d e p r i v e d

T h e ethics Levinas has in m i n d is o n e t h a t " h a p p e n s " to me

o f t h e d i g n i t y o f t h e self, a s w h e n d e a t h a p p r o a c h e s , o r a s

w h e n a n o t h e r p e r s o n loses his o r h e r p r o p e r r e l a t i o n t o h i m -

w h e n s o m e o n e forgets himself in p a s s i o n . D i s p o s s e s s e d of self,

o r herself. T h i s e r o s i o n o f p r e s e n c e c o n s t i t u t e s a n e v e n t (or,

o u t s i d e oneself, t h e o t h e r p e r s o n is, i f w e m a y say t h i s , p o s -

better, is t h e e v e n t of t h e e m p t y i n g o u t of all p r e s e n c e ) t h a t

sessed by d i s p o s s e s s i o n , or by a n o n y m i t y . In t h e g r i p s of p a i n

" d e n u c l e a t e s " t h e self (moi), a n d t h u s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p p r o p e r

o r p a s s i o n t h e o t h e r p e r s o n , n o l o n g e r h i m - o r herself, i s n o

w i t h t h e o t h e r p e r s o n slips i n t o a v e r t i g o , an i n d u c e m e n t , a

l o n g e r self-possessed a n d s o m e t h i n g i r r e p a r a b l e h a p p e n s . T h i s

p r o v o c a t i o n , or a s u g g e s t i o n — s o m e t h i n g like an e t h i c a l o b l i -

o c c u r r e d , a s w e k n o w , t o Bataille, w h o b e c a m e s o o b s e s s e d

g a t i o n , b u t o n l y imprecisely, loosely. In fact it is i m p o s s i b l e to

w i t h t h e f a m o u s p h o t o g r a p h o f a m a n w h o w a s b e i n g flayed

characterize w h a t " h a p p e n s " here and it is only ambiguously

a n d dismembered while being kept conscious with o p i u m . T h e

t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e o f ethics i s " e q u a l t o , " o r i s t h e m e a n i n g of,

e x p r e s s i o n o n t h e sufferer's face, Bataille s a y s , w a s " a t o n c e

this e r o s i o n .

3 0

I t i s L e v i n a s ' s p r o j e c t t o s h o w t h a t all h u m a n

ecstatic(?) a n d i n t o l e r a b l e . "

3 1

The other person became

relations are always threatened by an evacuation of presence,

u n s i m p l e : n e i t h e r s i m p l y living n o r d e a d , n e i t h e r i n p a i n n o r

a n d h e insists o n o u r e t h i c a l o b l i g a t i o n t o " t h e n e x t o n e I

i n e c s t a s y — b e c a m e , w e m a y say, c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s e

m e e t , " the next one on the street I h a p p e n to run into. W h a t

p o l e s — n o l o n g e r a self b u t c o m m u n i c a t i o n "itself." T h i s e v e n t

L e v i n a s w a n t s to say is t h a t h u m a n life is in r a p p o r t w i t h a

o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n m a y h a p p e n t o u s w h e n s o m e o n e (like o n e

general i m p r o p r i e t y t h a t s u g g e s t s b o t h a n a r c h y and c o m m u -

of t h e g l a m o r o u s p e o p l e f r o m t h e film Paris Is Burning) is

nity, b o t h s t a b i l i t y and instability. T h a t i s t o say, a c c o r d i n g t o

engaged in the project of passing from male to female, or the

L e v i n a s , t h e r e is a r e l a t i o n in r e l a t i o n to w h i c h I am a l w a y s

reverse. There the other person passes beyond mere imitation

already in relation, or in relation to which I am absolutely

o f f e m a l e (or m a l e ) a n d a p p r o a c h e s , n o t a t h i r d s e x , b u t t h e

p a s s i v e . T h i s passivity is a r e s p o n s e to t h e O t h e r — b e y o n d h i m -

c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e sexes t h a t m a k e s t h a t w h i c h i s

or h e r s e l f — t h a t I c o m e to be r e s p o n s i b l e for. But, a n d t h i s is

called g e n d e r possible, w h i l e calling it i n t o q u e s t i o n . In these

s t r a n g e , r e s p o n s i b l e for nothing ( t h a t is to say, not n e c e s s a r i l y

e x t r a v a g a n t cases, the o t h e r p e r s o n b e c o m e s radically dis-placed,

r e s p o n s i b l e t o r e s t o r e t h e o t h e r t o p r o p r i e t y , for t h a t w o u l d

s e e m s t o b e l o n g n o w h e r e , s e e m s t o h a v e lost a w o r l d , a n d

p r e s u p p o s e s o m e c o m m o n essence or destiny). It is a responsi-

b e c o m e s , a s Levinas p u t s it, " n a k e d b e y o n d n u d i t y " because this " s o m e o n e " will h a v e e x c e e d e d a n y localizable c o n t e x t s . W h e n

bility p r o p r i e t y c a n n o t satisfy. W e r e t u r n a g a i n a n d a g a i n t o this fragile a n d i n d e f i n a b l e relation

with

Autrui

as

that from

which

I cannot distinguish

myself. B e y o n d o r o t h e r w i s e t h a n d o u b t o r c e r t a i n t y , t h i s sin-

t h i s h a p p e n s , all p r o p e r r e l a t i o n s t o t h e o t h e r a r e s u s p e n d e d a n d t h e r e is, b e f o r e a n y t h i n g else, a f a s c i n a t i o n . T h i s f a s c i n a tion or obsession is the " s u b s t a n c e " of Levinas's e t h i c s .

32

)

'I

I

i, r. V i IN /\ 3 a i ' i i l i *

W ( >

i

W i t h a B l a n c h o t i a n accent, I.evinas h a d given us to u n d e r -

(like a s t r a n g e r , in o t h e r w o r d s ) , (hen the b o r d e r s b e t w e e n

s t a n d t h a t , b e f o r e i t i s a n y t h i n g else, o u r r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e

stage and audience are suspended and we are "involved,"

o t h e r p e r s o n is an i n v o l u n t a r y f a s c i n a t i o n . Autrui is a r r e s t i n g

" e l e c t e d , " " s i n g u l a r i z e d . " T h e p a r a l y s i s o f t h e subject i s a n

a n d p a r a l y z i n g . W e c a n b e o v e r c o m e by, o r e x p e r i e n c e , a n

u n c o n t r o l l a b l e r a p p o r t w i t h t h e o t h e r p e r s o n . W i t h this i s car-

arresting fascination with a n o t h e r person w h o has "passed

ried a w a y all p r o p e r difference b e t w e e n S a m e a n d O t h e r . T h e r e

b e y o n d " while remaining here. It is a fascination w i t h t h a t

i s a n identification o f t h e S a m e w i t h t h e O t h e r t h a t d e n u c l e a t e s

w h i c h p r e s e n t s itself as o u t s i d e itself—as d r a i n e d of all reality,

t h e S a m e o f s a m e n e s s a n d r e n d e r s t h e o t h e r p e r s o n all t h e

as threatened or already contaminated by absence, but in such

m o r e Other in that I am the same as he (who, nonetheless,

a w a y t h a t p r e s e n c e a n d a b s e n c e cease t o b e t h e p r o p e r t e r m s

remains other than I, other than anyone). This is an intimacy

for t h e O t h e r . T h e o t h e r p e r s o n , o u t s i d e a n y s i m p l e p r e s e n t a -

more profound than sympathy or empathy, which presuppose

tion, is " b e y o n d " while remaining here, before m e ; b u t this

a s t a b i l i t y i n t h e S a m e w h o can identify w i t h t h e o t h e r . W h a t

" h e r e " is no l o n g e r a p r e s e n c e , it is, as it w e r e , d e l a y e d b e h i n d

h a p p e n s in L e v i n a s i a n p r o x i m i t y is an i n a b i l i t y or a n o n i n t e n -

itself, or is yet to c o m e . It is t h e wrcpresence of c o m m u n i c a t i v i t y .

t i o n a l i t y t h a t seizes u s f r o m t h e inside. T h i s loss o f p r o p r i e t y

T h e other person is threatened with becoming a spectacle—a

is c o n t a g i o u s . It is s h a r e d like a c o m m u n a l ecstasy.

r e a l i t y m a d e u p o f n o t h i n g n e s s (as, for e x a m p l e , i n p r o f e s -

A n o n y m o u s identification is n o t a k n o w l e d g e t h a t I t o o

sional wrestling, where the spectacle comes from the draining

c a n die, or that I too can have my gender transformed. It is an

a w a y o f all " r e a l " w r e s t l i n g a n d c o m p e t i t i o n ) . T h e f a c e - t o -

e x p e r i e n c e o f a n o n y m i t y (an e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e r e

face r a p p o r t f r o m Totality and Infinity is s u c h a s p e c t a c u l a r

being a n y o n e there to have the experience). It is the experi-

r e l a t i o n . T h e r e , t h e o t h e r p e r s o n , a s visage, i s p r e s e n t e d a s

e n c e of b e i n g already d e a d . A n o n y m o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is a

m a d e u p o f t h a t p a s s i n g a w a y t h a t d o e s n o t p a s s : t i m e . (In

p a r a l y s i s t h a t subjects m e t o alterity " d e s p i t e myself," a n d

p r o f e s s i o n a l w r e s t l i n g , all r e a l i t y h a v i n g b e e n d r a i n e d a w a y ,

t h i s is t h e very s t r u c t u r e of subjectivity for L e v i n a s : d e s p i t e -

s o m e t h i n g yet r e m a i n s t o b e seen. T h a t w h i c h i s a r r e s t i n g i s

oneself-for-an other.

a l w a y s t h a t w h i c h r e m a i n s t o b e seen w h i l e all i s a l r e a d y i n

It is precisely t h i s s i n g u l a r r e s p o n s e or " r e l a t i o n " — p a r a -

f r o n t o f m e , b u t a s i f yet t o c o m e . ) B e y o n d a n y p r o p e r r e l a t i o n

lyzing a n d a n o n y m o u s , " d e s p i t e - m e " — t h a t L e v i n a s s e e k s t o

t o self, a s p e c t a c l e c o m e s t o a r r e s t a n d p a r a l y z e u s : t h a t t o

a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e l a n g u a g e o f e t h i c s . H e w i s h e s t o define e t h -

w h i c h t h e r e i s n o p r o p e r r e s p o n s e . A n d t h e p a r a l y s i s w e feel i s

ics a s a n a n o n y m o u s i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h alterity t h a t calls for

a p a r a l y s i s of the subject. Bataille p r o b a b l y k n e w t h i s b e t t e r

a n d dissolves all p r o p e r r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e o t h e r p e r s o n , a n d i t

t h a n a n y o n e : " A m a n alive, w h o sees a f e l l o w - m a n d i e , c a n

" p o s e s p r o b l e m s i f o n e i s n o t t o a b a n d o n oneself t o v i o l e n c e .

s u r v i v e o n l y beside himself'[s'il v o i t s o n s e m b l a b l e m o u r i r , un

I t calls for c o m p a r i s o n , m e a s u r e , k n o w i n g , l a w s , i n s t i t u t i o n s —

33

v i v a n t ne petit p l u s s u b s i s t e r q u e hors de soi]."

O n e d o e s n o t m e r e l y o b s e r v e a scene h e r e . For, w h e n t h e

justice | a m o i n s d e s ' a b a n d o n n e r a l a v i o l e n c e , p o s e des p r o b l e m s . Elle en a p p e l l e a l o r s a la c o m p a r a i s o n , a la m e s u r e , au 3 4

o t h e r p e r s o n is d r a i n e d of all s u b s t a n c e , w h e n his r e a l i t y is

savoir, a u x lois, a u x i n s t i t u t i o n s — a l a j u s t i c e ] . "

t h i s e r o s i o n , w h e n Autrui faces us like " t h e n e x t o n e I m e e t "

say, o u t s i d e p u r e a n d s i m p l e a b a n d o n m e n t t o v i o l e n c e , t o a

T h a t is to

I [ o b b e s i a n w a r ol .ill againsl all, there must be s o m e t h i n g like

m a y h e d o n e t o him)

like the m a n t o r t u r e d t o d e a t h i n C h i n a

k n o w i n g , l a w s , justice, a n d s o f o r t h — a l l o f w h i c h m u s t re-

w h o s o o b s e s s e d Bataille. I n t h e face o f t h e o t h e r , i n t h e s p e c -

m a i n q u e s t i o n a b l e a n d r e t a i n w i t h i n t h e m s e l v e s a call for t h e i r

tacle t h a t is an i m a g e l o s i n g its r e f e r e n c e , is t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n

r e v a l u a t i o n . T h e r e i s n o e t h i c s p r o p e r , p e r se, o r a s s u c h a n y -

o f t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f f i n i t u d e : t h e O t h e r , precisely, c a n n o t b e

w h e r e in Levinas's w o r k s . But n e i t h e r is t h e r e a p u r e a n d s i m p l e

himself. Autrui c a n n o t be himself a n d t h e r e f o r e I am c a l l e d to

a b s e n c e o f e t h i c s . T h e call o f t h e O t h e r will n e v e r c e a s e t o

b e f o r - h i m . H e i s n o t e q u a l t o himself, b y definition, a s

place an incoherent d e m a n d in the soul of the subject to w h i c h

Heidegger has so implacably shown. T h a t is h o w it is with the

n o r e s p o n s e i s a d e q u a t e (by d e f i n i t i o n , for n o t h i n g c a n b e a d -

other person, a n d t h a t is w h y he obsesses me. He is w e a k ,

e q u a t e t o t h e i n c o h e r e n t ) . H i s e t h i c s , t h e r e f o r e , is, a s h e s a y s ,

i m p o v e r i s h e d , h o m e l e s s , g l o r i o u s . . . T h a t is w h a t affects me

a n " o b s e s s i o n . " Every r e s p o n s e t o t h e o t h e r , every r e s t o r a t i o n

beyond characterization and beyond description. Even the

t o t h e g e n e r a l , will b e t r a y t h e d e m a n d . B u t a t t h e s a m e t i m e ,

h o m e l e s s a r e n o t e q u a l t o their h o m e l e s s n e s s — t h e y a r e a l w a y s

e a c h b e t r a y a l will b e a n e w r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e o t h e r a n d t h u s

w o r s e off o r o t h e r w i s e affected t h a n o t h e r s (or t h e y t h e m -

e t h i c s will m i m e o r " c o n f o r m " t o m i m e s i s , t o t h e i m p r o p e r

selves) c a n s a y t h e y a r e . T h o s e w h o suffer c a n n o t g r a s p t h e i r

"itself." T h e r e will b e n o r e a c h i n g e t h i c s , n o t e a c h i n g it, n o

suffering, e v e n if t h e y tell us of it. On t h e " h i t h e r s i d e " of all

i n s t i t u t i n g it. T h e r e will b e i n s t e a d t h e s l o w e m p t y i n g o u t o f

t h a t is said, an infinite vulnerability obsesses us b e y o n d m e a s u r e .

a n y d e t e r m i n a t e r e l a t i o n w h a t s o e v e r , a n d this e m p t y i n g o u t

E t h i c s , a s L e v i n a s defines it, i s r i g o r o u s l y c o r r e l a t i v e w i t h

will a r t i c u l a t e b y e x h a u s t i o n a n d e x c l u s i o n t h e s i n g u l a r "it-

f i n i t u d e . T h e p a r a l y s i s o f t h e s u b j e c t i s t h e infinite v u l n e r a b i l -

self." T h i s d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t ethics i s a n y r e l a t i o n a t all. A n y

ity t h a t i s f i n i t u d e — i t s o p e n n e s s t o a n y r e l a t i o n w h a t e v e r (just

r e l a t i o n a t all w o u l d r e m a i n j u s t t h a t — i n d i f f e r e n t — w e r e i t

o r u n j u s t , r e s p o n s i b l e o r n o t ) . A n d , t h e r e i s n o ethics o f f i n i t u d e .

n o t for t h e p e c u l i a r g r a v i t y o f m i m e s i s : t h a t t o w h i c h n o r e l a -

T h e r e is s o m e t h i n g like a s u g g e s t i o n , a m u r m u r t h a t o b l i g e s

tion (and no language) is adequate.

u s a n d c o n s t r a i n s u s t o s o m e t h i n g like e t h i c s . S o m e t h i n g , h o w -

L e v i n a s ' s e t h i c s , if it is e t h i c s , will be an e x p e r i e n c e of t h i s

ever, t h a t will a l w a y s h a v e " d u p e d " u s i n t h e s e n s e o f o u r

i m p o s s i b i l i t y : t h e r e i s n o r e l a t i o n t h a t i s e i t h e r inside o r o u t -

h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n in by a d u b i o u s s c h e m e in s p i t e of o u r b e s t

side t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o r e s p o n d t o t h e O t h e r t h a t i s n o t a l s o a

(or w o r s t ) i n t e n t i o n s . S o m e t h i n g will a l w a y s h a v e d r a g g e d u s

s u b s t i t u t i o n of me for t h e other. S u b s t i t u t i o n , in L e v i n a s , is

a g a i n s t o u r will i n t o a v e r t i g o f r o m w h i c h o n l y a n a m e l e s s

the very m e a s u r e of a measureless w e a k n e s s : finitude. T h a t is

a n d affectless voice will s p e a k , like t h e n a r r a t i v e v o i c e f r o m

t o say, t h e r e i s n o h u m a n r e l a t i o n t h a t d o e s n o t c i r c u m s c r i b e a

Blanchot.

35

loss t h a t p a s s e s w i t h o u t p a s s i n g a w a y . T h a t loss i s i n s c r i b e d in, o r a s , t h e face o f t h e o t h e r p e r s o n w h o faces m e f r o m b e y o n d himself a n d thereby obligates t h a t I am called on to be

Death

substituted

and

T h e space of radical ethics—a relation with others

w h o i s a b a n d o n e d t o a n infinite v u l n e r a b i l i t y t h a t i t i s b e y o n d

t h a t precedes egology—is deeply, even definitively, a m b i g u o u s .

his p o w e r t o e q u a l ( a b a n d o n e d b e y o n d e v e n a n y v i o l e n c e t h a t

As a m b i g u o u s , it is n e u t r a l a n d n e u t r a l i z i n g . It is as m u c h a

for

him

who

cannot substitute for

himself,

i i: v i

N A

s • s i i 111 >

5

s p a c e of d e a t h a n d dying, oi l i n i t u d c , literature, a n d m a d n e s s ,

v o l o n t é p a r t a g é e d ' ê t r e a p l u s i e u r s , fût-ce p o u r ne rien

as it is of e t h i c s . F i n i t u d e is given at b i r t h by t h e O t h e r w h o m

faire, c ' e s t - à - d i r e ne rien faire d ' a u t r e q u e de m a i n t e n i r

I f o r g e t b u t to w h o m I o w e t h e finitude I a m . I am i g n o r a n t of

le partage de 'quelque chose' qui précisément semble

m y b i r t h a s I a m o f m y d e a t h , since t h e s e define a n d t h e r e f o r e

s ' ê t r e t o u j o u r s d é j à s o u s t r a i t à la p o s s i b i l i t é d ' ê t r e

e s c a p e m e , o r i n v o l v e m e i n a limit o v e r w h i c h I e x e r c i s e n o

considéré c o m m e part à un partage: parole, silence.]

38

36

c o n t r o l . I t i s (the) O t h e r ( s ) w h o i n v o l v e ( s ) m e i n t h e s e l i m i t s t h a t define m e . O n l y b y a n a b u s e o f l a n g u a g e , h o w e v e r , c a n

This

space, without

or

beyond essence

(au-delà

de

t h i s s p a c e b e a p p r o p r i a t e d t o t h e l a n g u a g e o f e t h i c s ; for t h e

l'essence), t h i s b e i n g - i n - c o m m o n t h a t ¿5 o n l y as " o t h e r w i s e

space of incarnation a n d death is singular a n d incomparable.

t h a n b e i n g , " is, for L e v i n a s , t h e p l a c e of a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t h a t

It belongs to no one. It is properly neither ethical n o r aes-

p l a c e s me in q u e s t i o n , for o n l y t h e r e , o u t s i d e e s s e n c e , can I

t h e t i c . I t i s n o m o r e t h e f i r s t sign o f e t h i c s ( a n e x t r e m e h u m i l -

meet the other as other t h a n other-I. T h e ambiguity of this

ity b e f o r e t h e o t h e r ) t h a n o f h i s t r i o n i c s (the ability t o p l a y all

s p a c e is s h a r e a b l e o n l y as c o n t e s t e d , as i n - q u e s t i o n ( h e n c e , it

t h e r o l e s w i t h a n icy d e t a c h m e n t ) , o r o f m a d n e s s ( a d i s p o s s e s -

is the space n o t only of responsibility, b u t also of rivalry a n d

s i o n o f self a n d a r e p o s s e s s i o n b y w h o k n o w s w h a t forces o r

jealousy). D e a t h is inscribed here as well. It is the space of t h e

demons). Incarnation is irreducibly undecidable, unoccupiable,

f i n i t u d e , w e m u s t say, i n spite o f L e v i n a s ' s p r o f o u n d a v e r s i o n

a n d u n p r e s e n t a b l e . B u t this i s a l s o t h e s p a c e o f e x i s t e n c e w h i c h

t o f u n d a m e n t a l o n t o l o g y a n d Bataille's i m p a t i e n c e w i t h H e i -

is, a s N a n c y s a y s , " o f f e r e d b y n o o n e t o n o o n e . " I t i s offered,

degger's "slavish" devotion to philosophy. It is finitude as t h a t

b u t i t i s a l w a y s a l r e a d y lost o r s u r r e n d e r e d b e c a u s e i t b e l o n g s

o b l i g a t i o n - t o - b e t h a t I c a n n o t ever m e e t , for i t defines m e a n d

t o n o o n e . I t is, N a n c y s a y s , " s h a r e d , " b u t o n l y a s t h a t w h i c h e l u d e s all s h a r i n g .

3 7

There can be no transcending this space,

since it is u n e q u a l or insufficient to itself. T h e r e f o r e , as B l a n c h o t reminds us:

is t h u s b e y o n d me as the inescapable voice of conscience t h a t calls Da-sein to itself by p u t t i n g it in q u e s t i o n . It is an i m p r o p e r s p a c e , b e l o n g i n g t o n o o n e , a n d i s given t o Da-sein, b u t o n l y o n c o n d i t i o n t h a t Da-sein i s r a d i c a l l y n o o n e . U n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s p a c e is a s p a c e of u n p o w e r , of a n a r c h y .

I t d o e s n o t follow, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e c o m m u n i t y i s t h e

It is w h e r e there is exposure to e x p o s u r e . In this space, the

s i m p l e p u t t i n g i n c o m m o n , i n s i d e t h e limits i t w o u l d

o t h e r p e r s o n , e n r o l l e d a s this o r t h a t m e m b e r o f s o c i e t y (or

p r o p o s e for itself, of a s h a r e d will to be s e v e r a l , a l b e i t

part of some whole), is depropriated and communicates with

t o d o n o t h i n g , t h a t i s t o say, t o d o n o t h i n g else t h a n

t h i s s p a c e i t s e l f — b e y o n d a n y self. H e r e t h e o t h e r p e r s o n i s

m a i n t a i n t h e s h a r i n g o f ' s o m e t h i n g ' w h i c h , precisely,

a p p r o a c h e d by an u n p o w e r over w h i c h he can exercise no

seems always already to have eluded the possibility of

m a s t e r y a n d for w h i c h his r o l e d o e s n o t p r e p a r e h i m . L e v i n a s

b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d as p a r t of a s h a r i n g : s p e e c h , silence.

s a y s , " t h e face is e x p o s e d , m e n a c e d , as if i n v i t i n g us to an a c t o f v i o l e n c e fie visage est e x p o s é , m e n a c é c o m m e n o u s i n v i t a n t 3 9

[La c o m m u n a u t é n ' e s t p a s p o u r a u t a n t l a s i m p l e m i s e

à un acte de v i o l e n c e ] . "

T h e entire lacerated b o d y of the

e n c o m m u n , d a n s les limites q u ' e l l e s e t r a c e r a i t , d ' u n e

m a n t o r t u r e d i n C h i n a , w h o s e p h o t o g r a p h s Bataille h a d s e e n ,

I

I

v

I N A '.

'.

I

I

I I I I

a

(> i

w a s a visage in the Lcvinasian sense. I lis m u t i l a t i o n e x c i t e s a

( )ther w h o presents (my) death i<> me by r e v e a l i n g it n o t to be

p a s s i o n for further mutilation, even as it excites a p a s s i o n a t e

m y d e a t h , n o r his, n o r a n y o n e ' s . I a m o b l i g a t e d t o b e f o r - t h e -

r e v u l s i o n . In this s p a c e of c o n t e s t a t i o n — o f rivalry, of jealousy,

o t h e r , t o die i n his p l a c e , i n t h a t s p a c e w h e r e t h e o t h e r p e r s o n

o f t o r t u r e , o f d e a t h — t h e o t h e r p e r s o n loses himself a n d "of-

is approached by an unpower that approaches me and from

f e r s " t o m e a n o p e n i n g i n t o this s p a c e . T h e O t h e r i s s u b j e c t t o

w h i c h I h a v e n o p o w e r t o s e p a r a t e myself. T h i s i s n o t a c o m -

a w i t h d r a w a l over which there is no control and of w h i c h

m u n i o n , nor an exchange of places. It is the corrosive a n d

t h e r e i s n o k n o w l e d g e . A t t h e s a m e t i m e , h e b e g i n s t o lose his

s o b e r i n g r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e o t h e r p e r s o n i s n o t a b l e t o die

a b i l i t y - t o - d i e , his definitive m o r t a l potentia, his " o w n m o s t "

his own d e a t h . T h a t is w h a t is so t e r r i b l e a b o u t t h e final h o u r .

possibility. H e b e g i n s t o lose t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t defines h i m a s

T h e s o l i t u d e o f d y i n g m u s t b e s h a r e d . 1 die f o r - t h e - o t h e r a n d

Da-sein. T h i s possibility, H e i d e g g e r tells u s , o n c e r e a l i z e d is,

in his place because the other c a n n o t . He r e m a i n s , to the end,

h e n c e , n o l o n g e r p o s s i b l e a n d Da-sein, o n c e r e a l i z e d i n its b e -

u n c a n n i l y alive, r e m a i n s u n a b l e t o cease t o d i e , a n d s u r r e n -

i n g , loses itself a b s o l u t e l y b e c a u s e it is no l o n g e r able to d i e . It

d e r s t h e o w n - m o s t n e s s (the p o s s i b i l i t y t o die) t h a t defines h i m .

i s t o t h a t definitive p o w e r l e s s n e s s t h a t I r e s p o n d . T h i s m a y b e

D e a t h i s i m p e r s o n a l . T h a t i s w h y I m u s t b e t h e r e for h i m , w i t h

t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a n e t h i c s , b u t i t w o u l d b e a fatal o n e b e c a u s e

h i m . I a m called t o a c c o m p l i s h w h a t h e c a n n o t a c c o m p l i s h

I a m n o t a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h myself f r o m t h a t p o w e r l e s s n e s s .

himself. I m u s t s u b s t i t u t e for h i m this ability to die t h a t / a m .

T h e o t h e r p e r s o n i s n o l o n g e r a b l e t o forestall t h e a p p r o a c h o f

I a m t h a t s u p p l e m e n t h e d e m a n d s , o b l i g e s , i n o r d e r t o be, i n

d e a t h — a p a r a l y s i s t h a t , i n spite o f his l a n g u a g e , defines H e i -

o r d e r t o r e m a i n p o s s i b l e . H o w e v e r , I offer h i m w h a t i s n o t m y

d e g g e r ' s Entschlossenheit as a r a d i c a l passivity. It is to t h i s

o w n , w h a t I c a n n o t offer, w h a t I a m u n a b l e t o g i v e . H e n c e w e

p a s s i v i t y t h a t e x p o s e s b e y o n d n u d i t y t h a t I r e s p o n d , a n d for

e n t e r a d e a t h l i k e p a s s i v i t y (une passivité à mort) t o g e t h e r . T h i s

w h i c h I a m r e s p o n s i b l e . I n its a p p r o a c h (as t h e p o s s i b i l i t y - t o -

i m p o s s i b l e o b l i g a t i o n a n d i m p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n d o e s n o t define

die t h a t i s a l r e a d y a n i n a b i l i t y - t o - c e a s e - d y i n g ) , finitude e s c a p e s

me as t r a g i c . It e x p o s e s me to t h e r a d i c a l inability t h a t I must

f r o m " b e t w e e n " us, a n d h e n c e , t h e r e is a v e r t i g i n o u s (or a n o n y -

t, —that t h a t t o w h i c h I a m ethically o b l i g a t e d i s b e y o n d m e ,

4 0

e

m o u s ) c o n t a c t . I identify w i t h this O t h e r n o n i n t e n t i o n a l l y , p r i o r

b e y o n d m y p o w e r . I identify w i t h t h e o t h e r i n s o f a r a s h e i s n o

t o a n y d e c i s i o n , for t h e r e i s n o o n e t o identify w i t h a n d n o t h -

o n e , i s b e y o n d himself, a n d t h e r e f o r e I t o o a m b e y o n d , a m n o

ing to intend. T h e r e is an e m p t y identification "despite m y -

o n e , n o ipse—am myself a l r e a d y u n a b l e t o die. T o s u b s t i t u t e ,

self" t h a t i n t e r r u p t s m y " a s for m e . "

to s u p p l e m e n t for t h e o t h e r , is to d i e , like t h e o t h e r , as O t h e r .

T h e response is prior to consciousness a n d it dissolves the

J u s t a s t h e o t h e r m u s t die a d e a t h n o t his o w n , s o t o o I m u s t

s o c i a l b o n d , since I identify w i t h t h e O t h e r w h o i s n o o n e a t

die a n o t h e r ' s d e a t h . S u b s t i t u t i o n , t h e " g e r m " o f L e v i n a s ' s

a l l , is a l r e a d y b e y o n d t h e s o c i a l . O u t s i d e my self, I am t h a t

Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence,^

O t h e r w h o , p a r a l y z e d a n d d y i n g , i s already n o l o n g e r a b l e t o

except beyond me, outside me, despite-me-for-another. Sub-

is n o t a c c o m p l i s h e d

be there a n y m o r e . T h e O t h e r a n d I share this dying outside

s t i t u t i n g for t h e o t h e r , I d i e , t h u s a c c o m p l i s h i n g w h a t t h e o t h e r

ourselves that both touches and separates us. Resoluteness

c a n n o t . B u t d y i n g f o r - t h e - o t h e r , I r e m a i n u n a b l e t o die m y

(Entschlossenheit) e s c a p e s me a n d is a l r e a d y a r e s p o n s e to t h e

o w n d e a t h . I die a w a y f r o m myself. D e a t h i s i m p e r s o n a l ; i t

b e i n g - c a s t , a n d il I hi sein is Mit-einandersein, t h e n , letting go

b e l o n g s lo no o n e . I l e n e e , e v e r y o n e dies an ( )thcr's d e a t h , no o n e his o w n .

ol a n x i e t y a b o u t lostness (as b a t a i l l e r e c o m m e n d e d ) , it w e l -

T h e e t h i c s o f s u b s t i t u t i o n i s b e t r a y e d b y a n i n t e r n a l limit.

c o m e s t h e O t h e r . Ethics w o u l d b e s u g g e s t e d , a s i f h y p n o t i -

It is an i m p a s s e . I leave t h e s c e n e . I a b a n d o n a n d b e t r a y t h e

cally, by t h e call of finitude, if finitude is u n d e r s t o o d to be

O t h e r w h o calls t o m e . W h a t r e m a i n s i s t h e call f r o m n o o n e

rigorously

articulated

as

Mit-einandersein.

t o n o o n e . A call t o w h i c h n o e t h i c s , n o o b l i g a t i o n , i s a d -

T h e space we share/expose is the space of an instability

e q u a t e . T h e r e l a t i o n t o t h e O t h e r , like f i n i t u d e itself, i s b e y o n d

t h a t c a n n o t be c o m m a n d e d . It is t h e s p a c e of a r a d i c a l c o n t e s -

my g r a s p . Levinas's ethics is h a u n t e d by finitude, t h e very

tation of discourses that cannot be rigorously distinguished

finitude t h a t suggests an e t h i c s . T h e call of finitude—lacerat-

f r o m e a c h o t h e r . It is, if y o u like, t h e s p a c e of l a n g u a g e itself,

ing m e , e x p o s i n g m e , e n r o l l i n g m e , o b s e s s i n g m e — s a y s n o t h -

of w r i t i n g b e f o r e t h e letter, as D e r r i d a s a y s , or of le dire, as

i n g . It is t h a t other d e a t h t h a t d i s p o s s e s s e s me of myself.

L e v i n a s p r e f e r s . I n s o f a r a s Levinas's t e x t c o m e s t o d o u b l e H e i -

Yet I must be this e x i s t e n c e , this finitude, w h i c h is offered

degger's

(diachronie a n d Zeit, anarchie a n d das Man, le sujet

by no one to no one. I am nothing—nothing other than that

and

being-offered, t h a t supplement, or t h a t substitution t h a t I can-

his w o r k a m o u n t s t o a v a s t p r o t e s t a g a i n s t w h a t H e i d e g g e r

n o t a c c o m p l i s h . I am O t h e r — t h a t is, no o n e , no ipse. I am

could m e a n , a p r o t e s t a g a i n s t t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n of finitude to

only as substituted. T h a t is w h y I am always the first person

" f u n d a m e n t a l o n t o l o g y . " In an essay on Lyotard, L a c o u e -

accused, the first person responsible. My fascinated attentive-

L a b a r t h e says, "I h a v e a lot of t r o u b l e n o t seeing in H e i d e g g e r ' s

n e s s t o t h e O t h e r i s t h e b r e a k u p o f m y unity. T h e r e l a t i o n t o

' b e i n g ' , if it is still b e i n g , a n d if it is H e i d e g g e r ' s b e i n g , t h e

t h e O t h e r i s singular, u n i q u e , n o n g e n e r a l i z a b l e . T h e r e i s n o

s a m e t h i n g a s (if n o t its very possibility) L e v i n a s ' s ' t h e o t h e r -

e t h i c s a s s u c h , n o e t h i c s itself. O r , this e t h i c s i s s t r u c t u r e d like

wise than being'. Or as an empty t r a n s c e n d e n c e . "

i m p r o p r i e t y , a n d t h e L e v i n a s i a n s u b j e c t i s n o t h i n g b u t its infinite unfinished vulnerability.

Da-sein,

responsabilité

and

Gewissenheit,

and

so

forth)

4 3

T h a t is, b y a c t i n g a s a c o m p e t i t o r t o H e i d e g g e r a n d t o fundamental ontology, Levinas has exposed a n d exploited an an-archic r a p p o r t and has attempted to undermine Heidegger, w h o w r o t e n o e t h i c s . W h o w r o t e n o e t h i c s for t h e v e r y g o o d

Levinas

and

reason that there is nothing adequate or equal to finitude,

Heidegger

If L e v i n a s ' s e t h i c s is an e l a b o r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n of

n o t h i n g " o t h e r w i s e " t h a n finitude. Levinas is Heidegger in

finitude, then something about finitude—its primordial tem-

F r e n c h , b u t this c a n u n d e r m i n e H e i d e g g e r i n G e r m a n . I n very

p o r a l i t y , its d i a c h r o n y , its a l w a y s - o u t s i d e - i t s e l f n e s s — s u g g e s t s

different w a y s , Bataille a n d L e v i n a s e a c h e c h o H e i d e g g e r . E a c h

to L e v i n a s an e t h i c s . T i m e itself means ethics to L e v i n a s . Da-

says w h a t H e i d e g g e r will n o t say b e c a u s e i t i s u n s a y a b l e . F o r

sein—that b e i n g t h a t d o e s n o t h a v e its b e i n g , t h a t i s a l w a y s i n

L e v i n a s , t h e r e i s n o m e a n i n g i n t h e fact t h a t t h e r e i s n o e t h i c s

question, t h a t is the " p u r e abyss of presence in the p r e s e n t " —

of finitude. By r e p e a t i n g H e i d e g g e r in t e r m s of e t h i c s , L e v i n a s

suggests to Levinas, possibly to us as well, s o m e kind of eth-

gives u s n o t h i n g t o t h i n k , n o t h i n g t o k n o w b e y o n d t h i s s u g -

ics. If b e i n g o n l y " i s " in its p a s s i n g , or in its b e i n g - a l t e r e d , or

gestion: w h y did finitude n o t suggest an ethics to Heidegger?

4 2

We do not suggest that Levinas p u i s his own text in q u e s t i o n in o r d e r to p u t H e i d e g g e r ' s t e x t in question. We s u g g e s t

T II R E E

t h a t the ethics t h a t g n a w s at and transfigures Levinas is an involuntary dramatization of being-in-question. We are sugg e s t i n g t h a t finitude itself is infinitely s u g g e s t i b l e . It c a n n o t b u t suggest a " b e y o n d " o r a n " o t h e r w i s e t h a n b e i n g . " Levinas's e t h i c s , in its w a y , u n l e a s h e s this s u g g e s t i o n .

Blanchot, L'arrêt de mort, and the Image of Literature Artists are replicants who have found the secret of their obsolescence. —Massumi

Writing W r i t i n g o b s c u r e s t h a t o f w h i c h i t s p e a k s . Yet w r i t i n g s a y s , e a c h t i m e , c l e a r l y a n d u n o b t r u s i v e l y , there is. It s a y s t h i s if o n l y to d e n y it: there is n o t . . . W r i t i n g affirms e x i s t e n c e — t h e t h i n g itself, t h e r e a l — b u t o n l y b y t a k i n g its p l a c e . W r i t i n g t a k e s t h e p l a c e o f t h e r e a l i n o r d e r t o say it. I t i n t r u d e s itself b e t w e e n u s a n d t h e reality o f w h i c h i t s p e a k s . Still, o u t side o f w r i t i n g (before it, p r i o r t o it) w h a t h a s r e a l l y t a k e n p l a c e ? W h a t h a p p e n e d ? W r i t i n g w o u l d like t o say t h i s t h i n g , b u t as it sets o u t to do this it is i m m e d i a t e l y infected by a f o r e i g n ness t h a t w e a k e n s i t i m m e a s u r a b l y . I n s t e a d o f s a y i n g t h e t h i n g , it says (or e v e n , like t h e w o r k of a r t in L e v i n a s , it insists on) its absence by p r e s e n t i n g itself in t h e p l a c e of t h a t to w h i c h it w o u l d like to refer. B u t , w h a t is w r i t i n g itself ( o u t s i d e of, or j u s t s h o r t of, its r e f e r r i n g t o t h e t h i n g ) ? A n d d i d w e n o t b e g i n this p a r a g r a p h by saying t h a t writing says, not absence, but existence, there is? We s h o u l d h a v e said: Writing tears itself apart from the moment it begins to speak. But w h o c a n say this? L e t u s g o further. W h a t i f e x i s t e n c e ¿ 5 o n l y a s a b s e n c e , a n d m o r e precisely, 65

a s t h a t a b s e n c e that w r i t i n g s a y s , affirms, a n d " p r e s e n t s " ? O r ,

a r e "cast towards us like c h u n k s that h a v e w e i g h t in t h e m -

t o say t h e s a m e t h i n g a g a i n , w h a t i f e x i s t e n c e (the r e a l , t h e

selves [se jettent sur n o u s d e s c h o s e s c o m m e d e s m o r c e a u x q u i

t h i n g itself) is a l r e a d y t h e saying of absence, in s h o r t , w r i t -

s ' i m p o s e n t p a r e u x - m ê m e s ] . " I m p o r t a n t l y , this c h a o t i c m a t -

i n g — t h e v e r y w r i t i n g w h o s e p r e s e n c e insists u p o n t h e a b s e n c e

ter i s n o n e o t h e r t h a n t h a t m a t t e r w h i c h i s " d e f i n e d b y m e c h a -

o f t h e real? I n t h a t c a s e w r i t i n g w o u l d b e t h e v e r y t a k i n g -

nistic l a w s w h i c h w r i n g o u t its w h o l e e s s e n c e a n d r e n d e r i t

p l a c e o f ( d o u b l e genitive) e x i s t e n c e : w r i t i n g t a k e s t h e p l a c e o f

intelligible [définie p a r les lois m é c a n i s t e s q u i e n é p u i s a i e n t e t

existence a n d existence takes place as writing (but n o t — a n d

la r e n d a i e n t i n t e l l i g i b l e ] . " It is n o t , h o w e v e r , t h e s a m e thing

let us be clear a b o u t t h i s , for it is a t e m p t a t i o n to w h i c h L e v i n a s

a s t h i s inter-essed m a t t e r . I t i s n o t t h e s a m e t h i n g a s m a t t e r

says a e s t h e t i c e x i s t e n c e i s p r o n e — a s p u r e l y a n d s i m p l y f o r m e d

t h a t is f o r m e d , t h a t is s o m e item t h a t rests in a s e t t i n g , a w o r l d ,

or narrated). T h a t which happens outside the text takes place

a n d t h a t is, as H e i d e g g e r p u t s it, zuhandensein. Aesthetic m a t t e r

as writing b u t is n o t re-presented in the text. We could say

i s n o t d e s t i n e d t o t h e h a n d , t o t h e subject, o r t o a n y u s e r c o m -

4

5

t h a t w r i t i n g is the very h a p p e n i n g of an outside t h a t r e m a i n s

m u n i t y . It is i n s t e a d m a t t e r d e s t i n e d o n l y to appear, a n d o n l y

in t h e t e x t , b u t o n l y as a silence, like t h e voix narrative of

in poetry, but w i t h o u t being named.

w h i c h B l a n c h o t s p e a k s . W e c o u l d a l s o say t h a t w r i t i n g " f o r -

But this other destiny or other aspect to matter is n o t a

g e t s " itself a n d t h a t t h i s h a s u n t o l d c o n s e q u e n c e s ; silence af-

n e w quality that art discovers (and w o u l d , thereby, contribute

firms itself i n w r i t i n g w i t h o u t h a v i n g t h e s t r e n g t h t o say itself.

t o t h e intelligibility o f t h e w o r l d ) . I t i s n o t a q u a l i t y t h a t w o u l d

I n o u r first c h a p t e r w e s a w h o w i n a r t t h e c r e p u s c u l a r

b e p o e t r y ' s offering t o science a n d p h i l o s o p h y , c u l t u r e a n d

paroxysmality of naked matter suddenly makes an obscure

p s y c h o l o g y . T h a t w h i c h a r t d i s c o v e r s , o r u n c o v e r s , o r lays b a r e

" a p p e a r a n c e . " L e v i n a s s h o w s this t o u s i n his e v a l u a t i o n o f

will n o t b e f o u n d u n d e r a n y e n c y c l o p e d i c s u b j e c t h e a d i n g . T o

a r t f r o m b o t h " L a réalité e t s o n o m b r e " a n d t h e s e c t i o n f r o m

p u t i t v e r y s i m p l y : a r t i s useless m a t t e r . I t i s m a d e u p o f useless

Existence and Existents w h o s e title q u i e t l y s u m s up t h e u n i q u e

m a t t e r a n d uselessness i s n o t o n e o f m a t t e r ' s q u a l i t i e s . (It is,

a t m o s p h e r e he finds in art: "Existence w i t h o u t a W o r l d [Ex-

A g a m b e n w o u l d say, s o m e t h i n g like a " h a l o [ a u r e o l a ] . " ) W e

1

6

He m a k e s it clear in the later w o r k

m a y say, h o w e v e r , t h a t uselessness i s o n e o f m a t t e r ' s " p o s s i -

t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f m a t t e r t h a t i n t e r e s t s h i m i s n o t s o m e stuff

bilities." But w h a t does this m e a n , a n d w h a t does it m e a n t h a t

that is utterly refractory to mind, b u t is instead t h a t m a t t e r

o n l y i n a r t d o e s this " p o s s i b i l i t y " a p p e a r a s s u c h ? D o e s i t m e a n

which c a n only appear in poetry (but namelessly a n d w i t h o u t

t h a t a r t realizes t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f uselessness a n d p u t s i t t o

istence sans M o n d e ] . "

2

3

a n y o b j e c t i v i t y ) . H e refers t o t h a t a s p e c t o f m a t t e r w h i c h i s

w o r k ( a n d t h e r e b y b e t r a y s it)?

l i b e r a t e d w h e n , via a r t , o u r r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e w o r l d ( w i t h

I n his e s s a y " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e W o r k o f A r t , " B l a n c h o t

usefulness a n d w o r k ) a r e n e u t r a l i z e d . A s w e h a v e seen i n o u r

says (in t e r m s t h a t a r e close t o b o t h L e v i n a s a n d H e i d e g g e r )

first chapter, this neutralization is the very event of art a n d it

t h a t "if t h e s c u l p t o r uses s t o n e a n d i f t h e r o a d b u i l d e r a l s o

immerses us in an a t m o s p h e r e w h e r e space is w i t h o u t a hori-

uses s t o n e , the first uses it in a w a y t h a t it is n o t used, c o n s u m e d ,

zon, w h e r e "[n]aked elements, simple a n d absolute [Éléments

n e g a t e d b y u s a g e , b u t affirmed, r e v e a l e d i n its o b s c u r i t y , a s a

n u s , simples et a b s o l u s ] " detach themselves from things a n d

r o a d t h a t l e a d s o n l y t o itself [si l e s c u l p t e u r s e sert d e l a p i e r r e

I II I \ I I

et si le c a n t o n n i e r aussi se sert de la p i e r r e , le p r e m i e r l'utilise

ier can be used in such .1 w a y that it v a n i s h e s i n t o its uses. But

d e telle s o r t e q u ' e l l e n ' e s t p a s utilisée, c o n s o m m é e , niée p a r

art uses m a i l e r such t h a t it is wwused, w o r k l e s s , idle, useless.

l ' u s a g e , m a i s affirmée, révélée d a n s s o n o b s c u r i t é , c h e m i n q u i

Art s i m p l y c a u s e s t h e m a r b l e t o " a p p e a r , " n o t t o d i s a p p e a r

n e c o n d u i t q u ' à elle m ê m e ] . " T h e a r t w o r k , l e a d i n g t h e s t o n e ,

into use. In p o e t r y likewise, w o r d s , d e t a c h e d from referentiality,

a s i t w e r e , b a c k t o itself ( b u t d i d i t e v e r leave itself?) " m a k e s

s u d d e n l y m a k e a m a t e r i a l a p p e a r a n c e . It is t h e a p p e a r a n c e of

w h a t d i s a p p e a r s i n t h e o b j e c t a p p e a r [fait a p p a r a î t r e c e q u i

m a t t e r t h a t is, e m i n e n t l y , w h a t t h e w o r k o f a r t i s m a d e of. N o t

7

disparaît dans l'objet]." It is material that disappears into the

m a t t e r in its t h i n g l y reality, b u t in its a p p e a r i n g as such. N o t

object, a n d " t h e m o r e the material is appropriate—the m o r e it

thingliness, b u t the image of matter. Imaginary matter, if you

n e a r s n o t h i n g n e s s [plus la m a t i è r e { . . . } est a p p r o p r i é e , p l u s

prefer. I t i s u n e m p l o y e d m a t t e r , o r t h a t a s p e c t o f m a t t e r t h a t

8

elle s e fait p r o c h e d e r i e n ] . " But i n t h e a r t w o r k t h i s m a t t e r i s

r e m a i n s a l w a y s p r i o r t o its b e i n g m a t e r i a l for t h i s o r t h a t . A r t

p r e s e r v e d . " T h e s t a t u e glorifies t h e m a r b l e , " B l a n c h o t s a y s ,

¿5 u n u s e d , u n e m p l o y e d , a n d idle m a t t e r . A r t , in s h o r t , is t h e

e c h o i n g b o t h L e v i n a s a n d H e i d e g g e r , a n d t h e a r t w o r k "is

i m a g e of m a t t e r . I c a n d i s m a n t l e t h e t e m p l e a n d b u i l d a r o a d

e m i n e n t l y that of w h i c h it is made [est é m i n e m m e n t ce dont

w i t h t h e m a r b l e , b u t I c a n n o t d i s m a n t l e t h e image t h e t e m p l e

9

elle

]0

est faite]."

However,

e m i n e n t l y is. I c a n c a s t c e l l u l o i d i n t o t h e fire b u t I c a n n o t m a n i p u l a t e t h e m o t i o n p i c t u r e itself. I c a n n o t e v e n t o u c h it.

T h e painting is not m a d e from material ingredients

I t a p p e a r s . I t d i s a p p e a r s . A t t h e s a m e t i m e . For, t h i s i m a g e

a d d e d to a c a n v a s ; it is t h e p r e s e n c e of this m a t t e r ,

o f m a t t e r t h a t p r e c e d e s its d i s a p p e a r a n c e i n t o t h e o b j e c t (the

which without it w o u l d remain hidden to us. A n d the

t h i n g t h a t settles i n t o t h e f a m i l i a r h o r i z o n s o f t h e w o r l d ) i s

p o e m likewise is n o t m a d e with ideas, or with w o r d s ,

n o t i n t u r n t h e m a t e r i a l for a p e r c e p t i o n . T h a t i s w h y B l a n c h o t

it is the point from which w o r d s begin to become their

says t h a t t h e so-called elemental d e p t h i s " o p e n e d " b u t " a t t h e

a p p e a r a n c e , a n d t h e elemental depth u p o n w h i c h t h i s

s a m e t i m e it closes." Levinas says t h a t " p a r a d o x i c a l as it m a y

a p p e a r a n c e i s o p e n e d w h i l e a t t h e s a m e t i m e i t closes.

s e e m , p a i n t i n g is a struggle w i t h sight [si p a r a d o x a l q u e cela puisse p a r a î t r e , la p e i n t u r e est u n e lutte avec la v i s i o n ] " for " s i g h t

[Le t a b l e a u n ' e s t p a s fait à p a r t i r de la toile et a v e c d e s

s e e k s t o d r a w o u t o f t h e light b e i n g s i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a w h o l e

i n g r é d i e n t s m a t é r i e l s , il est la p r é s e n c e de c e t t e m a t i è r e

[elle c h e r c h e à a r r a c h e r à la l u m i è r e les ê t r e s i n t é g r é s d a n s un

q u i s a n s lui n o u s r e s t e r a i t c a c h é e . E t l e p o è m e e n c o r e

ensemble]."

n ' e s t p a s fait a v e c d e s idées, n i a v e c des m o t s , m a i s i l

a n d t h a t only appears in poetry (but remains unseen, u n o b -

e s t c e à p a r t i r d e q u o i les m o t s d e v i e n n e n t l e u r

served, unperceived, silent)—is m a t t e r as such, in its ipseity or

apparence

origin. ( W h a t is ipseity if n o t origin, anteriority, s o m e t h i n g as

et

la

profondeur

élémentaire

sur

laquelle

c e t t e a p p a r e n c e est o u v e r t e e t c e p e n d a n t s e r e f e r m e . ]

11

1 2

I m a g i n a r y m a t t e r — m a t t e r t h a t i s its o w n i m a g e

itself, as such, p r i o r to its predicative i n v o l v e m e n t s in t h e w o r l d ? ) U s e l e s s n e s s , w e h a v e s a i d , i s n o t a q u a l i t y . I t will n o t b e

T h e w o r k o f a r t r e q u i r e s m a t e r i a l s j u s t like o b j e c t s d o .

f o u n d i n a n y list o f q u a l i t i e s t h a t w o u l d d i s t i n g u i s h m a t t e r .

Plastic, ink, canvas, a n d m a r b l e are necessary to art, a n d mar-

Yet, it is o n l y as useless t h a t m a t t e r is m a d e to a p p e a r as s u c h ,

BI

A N ( I

I

0

I

a s i t s e l f — u n f o r m e d , u n t h i n g l y , a n d u n i l l u m i n a t e d . Useless,

ingness o u t s i d e ol all e v e n t s . But w h a t ol this n o t h i n g -

aesthetic matter is neither graphic nor acoustic. To be sure, in

ness itsell? S o m e t h i n g w o u l d h a p p e n , if o n l y t h e n i g h t

the temple marble is revealed as unemployed matter a n d it

a n d silence o f n o t h i n g n e s s . T h e i n d e t e r m i n a c y o f t h i s

c a n a p p e a r , t o t h e i n d u s t r i o u s engineer, a s m a t e r i a l for a r o a d

' s o m e t h i n g is h a p p e n i n g ' is n o t t h e i n d e t e r m i n a c y of a

(especially since t h e g o d s h a v e l o n g since fled t h e t e m p l e a n d

s u b j e c t a n d d o e s n o t refer t o a s u b s t a n t i v e . L i k e t h e

r e p l i c a n t t e m p l e s m a d e o f o t h e r m a t e r i a l s exist e l s e w h e r e a s

t h i r d p e r s o n p r o n o u n in the i m p e r s o n a l form of t h e v e r b ,

m u s e u m pieces, t h u s r e n d e r i n g t h e b a r e existence o f this t e m p l e

i t designates n o t t h e uncertainly k n o w n a u t h o r o f t h e

s u p e r f l u o u s ) . T h i s i s j u s t t h e p o i n t . N o o n e sees t h e useless-

a c t i o n , b u t t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f this a c t i o n itself w h i c h

ness o f m a t t e r . O n e sees m a t e r i a l for this o r t h a t . M a t e r i a l i t y

s o m e h o w has no author. This impersonal, a n o n y m o u s ,

itself h a r b o r s itself in its o w n visibility. T h a t is its o b s c u r i t y . In

yet inextinguishable " c o n s u m m a t i o n " of being, w h i c h

its u s e l e s s n e s s , u n c l o t h e d b y f o r m s , i t w i t h d r a w s f r o m p e r c e p -

m u r m u r s i n t h e d e p t h s o f n o t h i n g n e s s itself w e shall

t i o n . W h e n t h e g o d s h a v e fled the t e m p l e a n d w h e n e v e n t h e i r

d e s i g n a t e by t h e t e r m there is. T h e there is, i n a s m u c h

flight h a s b e e n f o r g o t t e n , B l a n c h o t s a y s i n this essay, t h e n t h e

as it resists p e r s o n a l f o r m , is ' b e i n g in g e n e r a l . '

t e m p l e i s n o l o n g e r a t e m p l e a n d i t r e t u r n s t o itself, w i t h o u t e v e r h a v i n g d e p a r t e d f r o m itself, i n its sheer, o b s c u r e , a n d

[ I m a g i n o n s l e r e t o u r a u n é a n t d e t o u s les ê t r e s : c h o s e s

u n p e r c e i v e d p r e s e n c e . I t r e t u r n s t o m a t e r i a l i t y itself, its o r i -

e t p e r s o n n e s . I l est i m p o s s i b l e d e p l a c e r c e r e t o u r a u

gin, w i t h o u t any proper n a m e or place in the world. Material-

n é a n t e n d e h o r s d e t o u t é v é n e m e n t . M a i s c e n é a n t lui-

ity (or a e s t h e t i c , o r i m a g i n a r y m a t t e r ) i s t h e n a m e g i v e n t o

m ê m e ? Q u e l q u e c h o s e s e p a s s e , fût-ce l a n u i t e t l a si-

m a t t e r itself—that s t r a n g e b o d y w h i c h h a s n o p r o p e r n a m e

lence du néant. L'indétermination de ce ' q u e l q u e c h o s e

s i n c e its p r e s e n c e r e m a i n s u n p e r c e i v e d . I n s o f a r a s i t h a s n o

s e p a s s e , ' n ' e s t p a s l ' i n d é t e r m i n a t i o n d u sujet, n e s e

p u r p o s e a n d serves n o p u r p o s e , a r t affirms t h i s n a m e l e s s n e s s :

r é f è r e p a s à u n s u b s t a n t i f . Elle d é s i g n e c o m m e l e

t h e v e r y fact of t h e il y a, as L e v i n a s s a y s .

13

It is an a f f i r m a t i o n

p r o n o m de la troisième personne dans la forme

t h a t d e f o r m s all w r i t i n g a n d t h a t m a k e s o f all w r i t i n g a n e r o -

impersonnelle du verbe, n o n point un auteur mal c o n n u

sion of t h a t propriety w h i c h places the things of the w o r l d

de l'action, mais le caractère de cette action elle-même

w i t h i n o u r grasp. Such deformed writing w o u l d be poetry: the

q u i , e n q u e l q u e m a t i è r e , n ' a p a s d ' a u t e u r , q u i est

v e r y difference o r d i v e r g e n c e o f t h e visible f r o m t h e invisible.

anonyme.

Cette 'consommation' impersonnelle,

In the r e n o w n e d passage that immediately follows "Exist-

a n o n y m e , m a i s i n e x t i n g u i b l e de l'être, celle qui

ence w i t h o u t a W o r l d , " Levinas describes "existence w i t h o u t

m u r m u r e au fond du néant lui-même, n o u s la fixons

e x i s t e n t s " ( w h i c h a m o u n t s t o t h e s a m e t h i n g , since e x i s t e n t s ,

p a r le t e r m e d ' i l y a. Mil y a, d a n s s o n refus de p r e n d r e

or beings, belong to a world). He says:

u n e f o r m e p e r s o n n e l l e , est 1 ' ' ê t r e e n g é n é r a l ' . ]

1 4

L e t u s i m a g i n e all b e i n g s , t h i n g s , a n d p e r s o n s , r e v e r t -

This crepuscular event is the writer's most quotidian mi-

i n g t o n o t h i n g n e s s . O n e c a n n o t p u t this r e t u r n t o n o t h -

i . A s w e s a w i n o u r first c h a p t e r , a r t i s t s w o r k w i t h i m a g e s .

r. i

A IN

i ii i i i

/

.1

T h e y w o r k w i t h that w h i c h resists w o r k a n d w h i c h b a l k s a t

at the s a m e t u n e , there is n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e w o r l d , n o t h -

p e r s o n a l f o r m . T h e y w o r k w i t h i n t h e i m a g i n a r y milieu t h a t

ing b e y o n d it, or o n l y the n o t h i n g . W r i t i n g s a y s , e a c h t i m e ,

p r e c e d e s t h e w o r l d a n d its i n t e r e s t s , a milieu w h e r e n o o n e

there

p r o p e r l y b e l o n g s . I n his f a m o u s e s s a y " T w o V e r s i o n s o f t h e

c a n d e t a c h from t h e t h i n g o f t h e w o r l d its p r e d i c a t e s , its k n o w -

Imaginary," Blanchot asks:

ability, its f e a t u r e s a n d d i s t i n g u i s h i n g m a r k s , its h i s t o r y a n d

is

(nothing else,

more,

or

beyond).

An

Orphic

glance

its f o r m — n o n e o f w h i c h a r e o t h e r t h a n i t a n d all o f w h i c h But w h a t is the image? W h e n there is nothing, the

t o u c h u p o n its ipseity. A n d it is t h e r e , in this d e t a c h m e n t , " b e -

i m a g e f i n d s i n t h i s n o t h i n g its n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n , b u t

side itself," a s a n o r i g i n a r y i m a g e , t h a t t h e t h i n g t a k e s p l a c e .

there it disappears. The image needs the neutrality a n d

A r t " s h o w s " t h i s . T h e d e t a c h m e n t i s its " e a c h t i m e " — a sin-

the fading of the world; it w a n t s everything to return

gular, a r t i c u l a t e d i n s t a n t , a fatal a n d d y i n g i n s t a n t u n a b l e t o

t o t h e i n d i f f e r e n t d e e p w h e r e n o t h i n g i s affirmed; i t

give itself its e n d . W r i t i n g gives t h i s to us as such; b u t we c a n -

t e n d s t o w a r d t h e i n t i m a c y o f w h a t still s u b s i s t s i n t h e

n o t g r a s p t h i s " g i f t , " for it is n o - t h i n g - l i k e . It is h o w it is. By

void.

t h e s a m e t o k e n , t h e b e i n g o f w r i t i n g itself i s " b e s i d e itself" i n poetry.

[ M a i s q u ' e s t - c e q u e l'image? Q u a n d il n ' y a rien, l ' i m a g e

E x i s t e n c e (or Being) t a k e s p l a c e i n p o e t r y , n o t i n t h e w o r l d

t r o u v e là sa c o n d i t i o n , m a i s y disparaît. L'image

( w h e r e it is d i s s e m i n a t e d in t h i n g s ) , b e c a u s e p o e t r y is w i t h o u t

d e m a n d e l a n e u t r a l i t é e t l ' e f f a c e m e n t d u m o n d e , elle

a w o r l d a n d w i t h o u t e x i s t e n t s (or b e i n g s ) . B u t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g

v e u t q u e t o u t r e n t r e d a n s l e f o n d indifférent o ù r i e n n e

o t h e r t h a n t h e w o r l d . L a n g u a g e i s t h e s a y i n g o f t h i s fatality. I t

s'affirme, elle t e n d à l ' i n t i m i t é de ce q u i s u b s i s t e e n -

r e t u r n s e x i s t e n c e t o "itself" (never h a v i n g left itself) j u s t a s , a t

core dans le vide.]

1 5

t h e e n d o f its i t i n e r a r y , t h e t e m p l e (the W o r k ) r e t u r n s t o itself—to t h a t w h i c h i t a l r e a d y n o l o n g e r w a s . T h i s i s its p u r e

In formulations t h a t have b e c o m e so familiar to us, we

e x p o s u r e t o i r r e p a r a b i l i t y , a s G i o r g i o A g a m b e n w o u l d say a n d

m a y say t h a t t h e i m a g e , a r t , o r p o e t r y (insofar a s p o e t r y b e -

a s w e shall d i s c u s s i n o u r n e x t c h a p t e r . T h e secret o f its o b s o -

gins o n l y w h e n w o r d s b e c o m e t h e i r o w n i m a g e ) i s t h e p r e s -

lescence i s t h i s " a l r e a d y n o l o n g e r " t h a t d e s c r i b e s its o r i g i n .

e n c e o f a b s e n c e , t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t n o t h i n g n e s s (or d e a t h )

A l r e a d y n o l o n g e r a t h i n g , n e i t h e r m e a n t n o r s h o w n , its b e i n g

b e p r e s e n t i n p e r s o n . O r , w e m a y say t h a t w h e n e v e r y t h i n g

i s its b e i n g - t o w a r d - i t s e l f , t o w a r d its d e a t h , t h a t a t e a c h in-

d i s a p p e a r s , d i s a p p e a r a n c e itself " a p p e a r s . " T h e s e f o r m u l a t i o n s

s t a n t a r r e s t s its b e i n g - t o w a r d , like t h e superfluity o f a n in-

r e m a i n helpful o n l y i n s o f a r a s w e r e m a i n a t t e n t i v e t o t h e i r

s t a n t t h a t m u s t e n d u r e its n o l o n g e r h a v i n g t i m e . T h i s i s like-

o b s c u r i t y , for t h e y d o n o t clarify t h e n o t i o n o f a n " e l e m e n t a l

wise the essence of Heideggerian finitude: at each instant o n e

d e p t h " t h a t B l a n c h o t i n v o l v e s u s in. I t r e m a i n s o u r t a s k t o

h a s a l r e a d y r u n o u t of t i m e a n d death is possible ( b u t t h e r e is

t h i n k t h a t it is in l a n g u a g e , in w r i t i n g , t h a t n a k e d e x i s t e n c e is

no longer any time during which or in which to die, as Blanchot

t o u c h e d , n o t i n t h e w o r l d (in w h i c h I c o n t i n u a l l y h i d e f r o m

inflects it). T h e u n c a n n y p r e s e n c e o r p e r s i s t e n c e o f t h e c o r p s e ,

m y e x p o s u r e a n d c a n flee m y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s like J o n a h ) . B u t

o r t h e w o r k o f a r t , realizes this e n i g m a .

W r i t i n g , t h e n , e x p o s e s or "exscribes"

16

a certain resistant

m a t e r i a l i t y o f w h i c h w e c a n o n l y say " t h e r e is." W h e n w e s p e a k o f ipseity o r o r i g i n , a s w e d o a b o v e , w e a r e i n d i c a t i n g an a b s o l u t e past, i m m e m o r i a l l y p a s t (since it w a s never p r e s e n t ) , a n d its o n l y " l i f e " is in its p e r s i s t e n c e in t h e i m a g e of t h e t h i n g s o f t h e w o r l d , b u t w i t h o u t its p r o p e r l y " b e l o n g i n g "

b u t they are h a p p i l y i e l a t e d . The s c h e m a " s h a r e s " w i t h t h e image some characteristic, but this shared characteristic h a s its own nature. It is n e i t h e r a s i m p l e a s p e c t (a " t h i s h e r e " ) n o r a r e p r o d u c t i o n (of a n a b s e n t " t h i s h e r e " ) . T h e s h a r e d c h a r a c teristic is c a l l e d , by H e i d e g g e r , in d e f a u l t of a p r o p e r n a m e of its o w n , a schema-image.™ T h e s c h e m a - i m a g e is t h e i m a g e of

to the world and the world's personal forms. The temple that

a c o n c e p t , an i m a g e of t h o u g h t , a n d it is t h a t by v i r t u e of

r e t u r n s to its o r i g i n , to its m a t e r i a l i t y , to itself, a l s o d i s a p p e a r s

w h i c h a p a r t i c u l a r c a n n o l o n g e r b e j u s t a n y t h i n g a t all, a n d

i n t o itself a n d b e c o m e s its o w n u n n a m a b l e i m a g e , r e c k l e s s

b e c o m e s i n s t e a d o n e a m o n g m a n y like it. T h i s i s t h e e s s e n c e

a n d u n g r a s p a b l e . / cannot touch the earth, for I am it, in an

of h u m a n intelligence: t h e s u b s u m p t i o n of particulars u n d e r

uncontrollable

dispersion.

universals. By m e a n s of the schema-image, the particular b e c o m e s ,

T h e a r t i s t c a n n o t r e a c h m a t e r i a l i t y , for m a t e r i a l i t y e x c l u d e s

in s h o r t , an " e x a m p l e of . . ." I m p o r t a n t l y , in b e c o m i n g an

a u t h o r i t y . T h e very life of m a t e r i a l i t y is its u n c a n n y p e r s i s -

e x a m p l e , t h e p a r t i c u l a r relinquishes its prelinguistic i n d é t e r m i n a -

t e n c e i n t h e w o r k o f a r t (or t h e c o r p s e ) a n d its d i s a p p e a r a n c e

t i o n a n d a c q u i r e s all i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n s b e c a u s e , a s a n e x a m p l e ,

into things t h a t rest in the horizons of the w o r l d . T h u s we

it need not appear as in fact it actually does appear.

m u s t n o t envision an independent, glorious, and p u r e pre-

e r a t i o n f r o m a c t u a l i t y is necessary for it to be s u b s u m e d u n -

p r e d i c a t i v e life. W e m u s t t h i n k s o m e " i t " t h a t r e m a i n s a l w a y s ,

d e r t h e u n i v e r s a l . As an e x a m p l e , it is necessarily contingent

a s i t w e r e , " b e t w e e n l a n g u a g e s . " U n s a i d e a c h t i m e , its life i s

( t h a t is, i t m u s t b e a b l e t o a p p e a r o t h e r w i s e t h a n i n f a c t i t d o e s

o n l y its t r a n s l a t a b i l i t y , its e x p o s u r e t o b e i n g s a i d . I t i s m a d e

a p p e a r o r i t c o u l d n o t b e r e c o g n i z e d a s w h a t i t is). T h e r e is,

up solely of v e r s i o n s . Its life is in t h a t v i b r a t i o n w h i c h m a k e s

t h e n , no actual s c h e m a - i m a g e . T h e s c h e m a - i m a g e is a pos-

identification

whose

intimacy

is

its

This lib-

i t s e n s a t i o n a l a n d leaves i t a l w a y s a t t h e t i p o f m y t o n g u e .

sible p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e " r u l e " o f p r e s e n t a t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d b y

A g a m b e n defines i t a s " p u r e l y linguistic e x i s t e n c e " a n d o n e

t h e s c h e m a . I t i s a n a n t e r i o r profile i n t o s u c h a t h i n g ( b u t t h e r e

that, always slipping from my t o n g u e , r e m a i n s strictly

is no such thing) as a general form of s o m e t h i n g , for e x a m p l e ,

unformulaic, but is eminently reformulaic (and w h o s e only

a h o u s e - i n - g e n e r a l . T h e s c h e m a - i m a g e is a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n (Vor-

life i s its r e f o r m u l a t i o n s , o r its t r a c e s , a s D e r r i d a a n d L e v i n a s

stellung) t h a t m u s t p r e c e d e a n y a c t u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h i s i s

w o u l d say.)

the " a r t " hidden deep in our souls. It is the " p r o d u c t i o n " of

In this w a y we c o m e very close to the old p r o b l e m of s c h e m a t i s m f r o m K a n t ' s Critique of Pure Reason a n d to t h e mysterious "art concealed in the depths of the h u m a n s o u l . "

1 7

R e c a l l t h a t t h e s c h e m a p r o v i d e s a n i m a g e for a c o n c e p t a n d t h a t t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e s c h e m a i s called s c h e m a t i s m . N o w , a schema is not an image and schematism is not imagination,

t h a t w h i c h is, a s W i l l i a m J . R i c h a r d s o n s a y s , " n o t t h e m a t i z e d at a l l , "

1 9

o r o f t h a t w h i c h is, A g a m b e n will say, n e i t h e r univer-

sal n o r p a r t i c u l a r .

20

T h e s c h e m a - i m a g e is a potentia, or, as

A g a m b e n says, a " h a l o . "

2 1

It is t h e p a r t i c u l a r with all its predi-

cates, n o o n e o f w h i c h o r n o c o m b i n a t i o n o f w h i c h , h o w e v e r , d i s t i n g u i s h e s it as w h a t it is. It is n o t , H e i d e g g e r r e m i n d s u s , a

IS I

A IN

l . I I < > I

d e s c r i p t i o n that enumerates a list <>f characteristics. The mind d o e s n o t w o r k from a n i m a g i n a r y i n v e n t o r y . N o p a r t i c u l a r

Proximity

t h i n g c a n c l a i m t o b e t h e o n l y p o s s i b l e e x a m p l e . W e will r e -

The chance of regarding the world, or another

turn to Kantian schematism when, in our next chapter, we

p e r s o n , from t h e i m p o s s i b l e p e r s p e c t i v e o f a n infinite d i s t a n c e ,

discuss A g a m b e n ' s politics. We bring it up n o w to indicate the

or a glacial r e m o t e n e s s , is at t h e h e a r t of B l a n c h o t ' s récits a n d

radical direction and orientation of Blanchotian t h o u g h t to-

his w r i t i n g s o n a e s t h e t i c s , a n d i t i s a l s o t h e k e r n e l o f L e v i n a s ' s

w a r d t h e " e l e m e n t a l d e p t h s , " a n d t h e icy i m a g e t h a t p r e c e d e s

éthique ( w h i c h w e m i g h t j u s t a s well g r o w a c c u s t o m e d t o c a l l -

the real a n d t h a t the real sinks b a c k into in the a r t w o r k , the

i n g " i m a g i n a r y " in B l a n c h o t ' s sense, b e c a u s e it is an e t h i c s

p o e m , t h e récit.

t h a t resists p e r s o n a l a n d f a m i l i a r f o r m ) . I n fact, t o f o l l o w u p

W e c a n see h e r e t h a t t h e s o u r c e o f a n y d e t e r m i n a t e i m a g e ,

on the remarks we m a d e on Levinas in our second chapter, we

o b j e c t , o r for t h a t m a t t e r , a n y h i s t o r y o r n a r r a t i v e ( a n y " t h i s

m a y keep in m i n d as we read Blanchot t h a t the aesthetic dis-

h e r e " or any absent "this here"), is a "rule-image" t h a t is n o t

tance or O r p h i c glance t h a t so obsesses Blanchot's n a r r a t o r s

b o u n d t o a n y definitive r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h e r u l e - i m a g e i s i m -

is, i n L e v i n a s ' s t e x t , identified a s a n infinite r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , o r

p e r c e p t i b l e a n d i t v a n i s h e s i n t o its " w o r k " o f free c o n s t r u c -

even an uncontrollable c o m p u l s i o n to be for-the-other, w h i c h

t i o n (Freibilden). It is a b s e n t / p r e s e n t in a n y definitive a c t u a l -

c a n n e v e r b e satisfied o r u s e d u p . T h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o p e n s

ity or i m a g e e x p o s i n g t h a t i t e m to all its p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a n d it is

o n t o a t i m e b e y o n d " m y d e a t h " t h a t t h e O t h e r (Autrui) " p r e -

n o t h i n g other t h a n this e m p t y totality that remains e m p t y be-

s e n t s " in a visage (or an a s p e c t , or i m a g e , in t h e B l a n c h o t i a n

c a u s e it is n e v e r a c t u a l i z e d or e n v i s i o n e d . It is, in t h e w o r d s of

sense) t h a t e s c a p e s c o m p r e h e n s i o n a n d p e r c e p t i o n just a s d o e s

Agamben

non-

the " m a t e r i a l i t y " of w h i c h we speak in the first section of this

Neither

chapter. F u r t h e r m o r e , this time b e y o n d " m y d e a t h , " or this

an aspect n o r a r e p r o d u c t i o n , this endlessly proliferating

t i m e t h a t is en deçà du temps (the t i m e of t h e " a l r e a d y no

" d e p t h ' s " o n l y e s s e n c e i s its e x i s t e n c e i n r e f o r m u l a t i o n s — b e -

l o n g e r " ) , f r o m w h i c h Autrui i n c e s s a n t l y e m e r g e s as visage, is

linguistic

once

more,

the pure

(l'essere-nel-linguaggio

del

heing-in-language nonlinguistico) ,

of the 2 2

i n g n a m e d b u t r e m a i n i n g silent, o u t s i d e t h e t e x t " i n " t h e t e x t .

a l s o t h e t i m e of " s u b s t i t u t i o n " or complete b e i n g - f o r - t h e - o t h e r

T h i s m e a n s t h a t its life is only e x t e n d e d a n d its e n d is only

t h a t f i g u r e s a s Levinas's m o s t striking a n d m o s t difficult n o t i o n .

p o s t p o n e d o r r e p r i e v e d a s i t i s e a c h t i m e (re)said. T h i s i s w h y

T h i s infinite d i s t a n c e o r g l a c i a l r e m o t e n e s s i s a l s o a n e x -

t h e a n o n y m o u s n a r r a t o r of L'arrêt de mort insists t h a t " t h e

t r e m e c l o s e n e s s , c o n t a c t , o r proximity i n t h e sense d e v e l o p e d

t r u t h will b e t o l d , e v e r y t h i n g o f i m p o r t a n c e will b e t o l d . B u t

at l e n g t h

by L e v i n a s in his Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de

n o t e v e r y t h i n g h a s h a p p e n e d yet [la vérité sera d i t e , t o u t c e

l'essence. It " l i v e s " in c o n s c i o u s n e s s as a trace or a p e r s i s t e n t

q u i s'est p a s s é d ' i m p o r t a n t s e r a dit. M a i s t o u t n e s'est p a s

thought t h a t c a n n o t b e t h e m a t i z e d a n d t h a t h a u n t s t h e n a r r a -

e n c o r e p a s s é ] , " b e c a u s e "[i]t m a y b e t h a t all t h e s e w o r d s a r e a

t o r in t h e s e c o n d d i v i s i o n of L'arrêt de mort. T h e o x y m o r o n i c

c u r t a i n b e h i n d w h i c h w h a t h a p p e n e d will n e v e r s t o p h a p p e n -

conjunction or disjunction of these t w o moments—closeness

i n g [Il s e p e u t q u e t o u s ces m o t s s o i e n t u n r i d e a u d e r r i è r e lequel

a n d d i s t a n c e — i s i n t e n d e d t o i n d i c a t e a h e t e r o n o m y , or, i f y o u

c e q u i s'est j o u é n e c e s s e r a p l u s d e s e j o u e r ] . "

2 3

prefer, a h y p o c r i t i c a l s c h e m a t h a t is, w e m a y say, t o o " w e a k "

to be resolved in s i m p l e i m a g e s or a n n o u n c e d in t h e m e s . Us-

n e v e r returns altogether to itself. In a formulation t h a t will

i n g B l a n c h o t i a n l a n g u a g e , w e c a n say t h a t p r o x i m i t y neutral-

not s u r p r i s e psychoanalysis, c o n s c i o u s n e s s (the e g o ) is n o t

izes s p a c e by n e u t r a l i z i n g t h e fixity of p r e s e n c e . As it will be

entirely f a m i l i a r to itself b e c a u s e it " i n c l u d e s " in it an a l t e r i t y

s p o k e n o f h e r e , p r o x i m i t y i s f o r e i g n t o ( o r i s n o t identifiable

it n e v e r i n t e n d e d .

in) i m a g e s o r t h o u g h t . ( T h e s t r a t e g i c f u n c t i o n o f t h e o x y m o -

T h e infected c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s n o t t h e / t h a t m a g i s t e r i a l l y

r o n i n all o f B l a n c h o t a n d L e v i n a s — n o t t o m e n t i o n B a t a i l l e ,

d i s t a n c e s itself f r o m t h e w o r l d o r f r o m a n o t h e r p e r s o n . T h e

Nancy, Lacoue-Labarthe, and even, sometimes, Heidegger—

B l a n c h o t i a n n a r r a t o r is n o t a p l a y e r in a g a m e of r e l a t i o n s . He

is p r e c i s e l y to f a t i g u e a n d freeze t h o u g h t i n t o a s u s p e n s i o n en

( a l w a y s " h e , " il, o r " i t , " a l w a y s , e v e n t o t h e n a r r a t o r , " t h e

deca d i a l e c t i c s . T h e " l o g i c " o f t h e o x y m o r o n i s t h e l o g i c o f

n a r r a t o r " ) is instead involved in a separation of time f r o m

the Blanchotian image, which, detaching the things of the w o r l d

time a n d space from space that opens o n t o writing because

from their involvement in the w o r l d , exposes t h e m to " t h e m -

w r i t i n g is t h e v e r y a p p r o a c h of o b s c u r i t y . As J w r i t e , he (il)

selves" prior to their m u n d a n e investments. T h e o x y m o r o n

d i s t a n c e s h i m s e l f w h i l e r e m a i n i n g near, u n a b l e t o a n n e x t h e

i n d i c a t e s a s c h e m a - i m a g e — a t e r m t h a t is, o f c o u r s e , itself

s p a c e of a p r e s e n t f r o m w h i c h or in w h i c h to w r i t e . J c a n n o t

o x y m o r o n i c — o r an " i m a g e " of t h o u g h t that neutralizes that

write w i t h o u t this affirmation of distancing t h a t does n o t be-

thought's thinkability. T h e o x y m o r o n is an image of w h a t re-

l o n g t o t h i s t i m e a n d this p l a c e i n w h i c h I w r i t e . B u t t h i s i s

mains when a thought—or an image—cannot be absorbed into

a l s o t h e f o r m u l a for e g o i s t e n j o y m e n t — t h e e n j o y m e n t of a

discourse. T h e o x y m o r o n is a hypocritical schema t h a t de-

c e r t a i n h o l i d a y f r o m t h e self.

t a c h e s t h o u g h t f r o m its p o w e r t o c o m p r e h e n d . )

For example, one day I may return h o m e with a strange

N o w , the distance referred to here is n o t the distance c o n -

d e s i r e t o m o v e t o a n o t h e r a p a r t m e n t a n d , after a few w e e k s , I

s c i o u s n e s s t a k e s f r o m itself in t h e p o w e r of its for-itselfness by

m a y do just that. But then I m a y wish to m o v e to yet another

w h i c h i t m a i n t a i n s itself i n its f r e e d o m a n d a u t o n o m y , a s H e g e l

a p a r t m e n t , a n d t h e n yet a n o t h e r , a n d a n o t h e r , a n d s o o n a n d

t e a c h e s . T h e d i s t a n c e referred to h e r e is repulsive: it is t h e

so on—until I am no longer able to " r e t u r n " " h o m e . " I m a y

d i s t a n c e c o n s c i o u s n e s s t a k e s f r o m w h a t is never itself, f r o m

e v e n , like t h e n a r r a t o r in {'arret de mort, m a i n t a i n t h r e e or

w h a t can be described as absolute vicariousness a n d from

f o u r flats a t t h e s a m e t i m e .

w h o s e a n - a r c h i c kiss t h e e g o is e x p e l l e d i n t o itself in a p r o x -

m a i n t a i n several a p a r t m e n t s at o n c e , since he or she c a n n o t

imity that cannot become transparent to consciousness. Prox-

i n h a b i t t h e m all s i m u l t a n e o u s l y ?

2 5

W h a t can compel someone to

i m i t y i s a s u r p l u s b e y o n d c o n s c i o u s n e s s ' s ability t o t h e m a t i z e ;

I m a y give i n t o t h i s m a d i m p u l s e b e c a u s e i n a n y o n e o f

it is a c o n s c i o u s n e s s t h a t is a l w a y s " l o s t , " forgetful of itself, or

my a p a r t m e n t s I could enjoy my absence from it as well, a n d

t r a p p e d in a d e l a y b e h i n d itself, as L e v i n a s s a y s , b e c a u s e it

a t t h e s a m e t i m e . T h a t is, I c o u l d e n j o y t h e fact t h a t I n e e d n o t

c a n n o t b r i n g i n t o t h e p r e s e n t in a Vorstellung (a " p l a c i n g b e -

sleep h e r e w h e r e I a m i n fact a c t u a l l y lying d o w n for t h e n i g h t .

It "forgets" to bring that which

I c o u l d g e t u p , d r e s s , a n d r e m o v e myself t o a n y o n e o f m y

affects it i n t o a p r e s e n t b e c a u s e it h a s no m e m o r y of it. Be-

o t h e r flats. E a c h o f t h e s e o t h e r s ( a n d t h e r e n e e d n o t b e a n y -

c a u s e of t h i s r e n d e z v o u s en deca t h e p r e s e n t , c o n s c i o u s n e s s

t h i n g special a b o u t t h e m ) s i m u l t a n e o u s l y h o u s e s m y a b s e n c e ,

f o r e " ) t h a t w h i c h affects i t .

24

s h e l t e r i n g , for as l o n g as I ^.m afford t h e m , a n o t h e r , slightly

of his othei apartments. Any this a p a n m e n t is, if y o u like, t h e

different, version ol this o n e thai I am in. E a c h o n e of t h e m

schema-image ol all the o t h e r s a n d it is e n j o y a b l e o n l y i n s o f a r

says t o m e : C o m e . T h i s w o u l d h e very p l e a s a n t . N o w a n d

as it " t o u c h e s " all ol t h e m . S l e e p i n g t o n i g h t so c o n t e n t e d l y in

t h e n , I m a y e v e n i g n o r e all of my flats a n d r e n t o u t a h o t e l

this flat, he is s i m u l t a n e o u s l y e m b r a c e d by all t h e o t h e r s . S e p a -

r o o m for a n i g h t o r t w o . O r I m a y s p e n d a n e n t i r e n i g h t w a n -

r a t e d f r o m its p a r t i c u l a r i t y — f r o m its i n d i v i d u a l , identifiable

d e r i n g t h e streets w i t h o u t s l e e p i n g a n y w h e r e , p a s s i n g , s o m e -

existence at this or that address in the city—it does n o t then

t i m e s , i n f r o n t o f o n e o f m y a p a r t m e n t s w h e r e I will h a v e left

b e c o m e insipidly ideal o r u n i v e r s a l . I n s t e a d , its " l i f e , " its " m a -

o n t h e l i g h t a n d t h e t e l e v i s i o n set i n o r d e r t o s a v o r all t h e

t e r i a l i t y , " i s o n l y i n its p r o x i m i t y . N e i t h e r p a r t i c u l a r n o r u n i -

m o r e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f b e i n g t h e r e . Y o u see, I w o u l d b e l o n g i n

versal, it is already no longer an object of consciousness. This

any o n e a p a r t m e n t only by virtue of belonging in each of the

kind of pleasure d e p a r t s from any cognitive relation the nar-

o t h e r s . (Is t h i s n o t t h e p l e a s u r e b i g a m i s t s seek o u t a n d enjoy?)

r a t o r m a i n t a i n s w i t h a n y p a r t i c u l a r flat. T h e n a r r a t o r i s i n

E a c h o f t h e s e v a r i o u s flats w o u l d h o u s e a n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f m e

a n y o n e r o o m o n l y via a d i s t a n c e f r o m / c o n t a c t w i t h all t h e

a n d w o u l d welcome me inside. No d o u b t , the n a r r a t o r of

o t h e r s h e r e n t s o u t . H e i s i n t h i s r o o m t h a t i s this r o o m o n l y

L'arrêt de mort s o u g h t o u t a n d e n j o y e d this p l e a s u r e b o r n of

b y v i r t u e o f its similarities to/differences f r o m all t h e o t h e r s .

i n d e c i s i o n , a n d e v e n j e a l o u s l y g u a r d e d it. ( W h e n , i n h i s a b -

T h i s r o o m " i n c l u d e s " t h e o t h e r s i n it, a n d i n t h i s r o o m , h e i s

s e n c e , a little girl s t a r e s i n t o a r o o m he r e n t s in a h o u s e w h e r e

the echo of himself in a n y of the other r o o m s . In this r o o m , as

o t h e r s a r e a l r e a d y living, t h e n a r r a t o r b e c o m e s f u r i o u s . H e i s

Levinas says, the ego is "like the echo of a s o u n d t h a t w o u l d

f u r i o u s b e c a u s e , g a z i n g a t his a b s e n c e , s h e t a k e s his p l a c e a n d

precede the resonance of this s o u n d [ c o m m e l'écho d ' u n son,

h e r g a z e p r e c e d e s a n d i n h a b i t s his r o o m , c o n t a m i n a t i n g h i s

qui précéderait la résonnance de ce s o n ] . "

own presence/absence.)

26

By virtue of r e m a i n i n g pleased w i t h t h e possibility of fleeing f r o m flat to flat, t h e n a r r a t o r finds himself i m p l i c a t e d in a w o r l d o f flats a n d i n v a i n w o u l d h e seek o u t t h e p r e c i s e m o m e n t h e b e c a m e so implicated. By virtue of taking pleasure in the p o s sibility o f his flight f r o m r o o m t o r o o m , t h e n a r r a t o r e n c l o s e s h i m s e l f i n h i m s e l f a n d h e e n j o y s t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f subjectivity. T h e e n j o y m e n t i s precisely t h a t e a c h " h e r e " i s a l s o a n " e l s e w h e r e . " I t i s n o t t h e p r e s e n c e o f this r o o m i n its a c t u a l p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h a t c o n t e n t s h i m , b u t his s a v o r i n g o f its p r o x i m i t y t o e a c h o t h e r r o o m h e r e n t s o u t . T h a t w h i c h h e enjoys i s n o t present, is n o t c o n s u m e d or used up, n o t even partially. This is t h e o n l y w a y t h e flat he is in c a n t r u l y " m a t e r i a l i z e . " This a p a r t m e n t is enjoyable only insofar as it is e x e m p l a r y of any

2 7

T h e I w h o signs all t h e r e n t a l a g r e e m e n t s a n d t h e c h e c k s t o p a y for t h e s e flats e v e r y m o n t h i s e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e p l e a sure of egoism. T h e subject c a n savor this i m m e n s e pleasure, b u t o n l y f r o m a n i m m e n s e d i s t a n c e , a s if, a s B l a n c h o t s a y s , i t w e r e s e p a r a t e d by a p l a t e of glass f r o m w h a t it n e v e r t h e l e s s e n j o y s , for i t c a n o n l y h a v e a d e g r a d e d i m a g e o r c o n c e p t i o n o f t h a t which it enjoys. T h e / is excluded from proximity a n d egoist enjoyment in which it is nevertheless implicated, b u t o n l y a t a glacial r e m o v e b e c a u s e t h a t w h i c h t h e e g o e n j o y s , i s t o u c h e d by, i s in, r e m a i n s i n c o n c e i v a b l e t o i n t e n t i o n a l c o n sciousness. T h a t which is desired, sought out, a n d enjoyed p r o x i m a l l y — i n s h o r t t h e p l a c e of jouissance—is precisely the divergence

of the particular from

the

universal.

Or,

the

diver-

gence of the image from t h e concept. It is a divergence t h a t

e a c h t u n c is s i n g u l a r a m i e x c l u s i v e . U n p e r c e i v e d , u n i n t e n d e d ,

the hours a n d the life w h i c h w e r e then | h i s | a r e d e a d t o o

a c c i d e n t a l , e r r o n e o u s , this d i v e r g e n c e is the very i n c a r n a t i o n

[pourissent, leur histoire est m o r t e , et m o r t e s a u s s i ces h e u r s

of the materiality of matter. This r o o m that the n a r r a t o r en-

et cette vie qui a l o r s o n t été les m i e n n e s ] . " ' He r e c o u n t s in-

j o y s is o n l y i n s o f a r as it is " b e s i d e itself," t o u c h i n g all its p o s -

s t e a d e v e n t s t h a t , w e m u s t p r e s u m e , a r e n o t (yet) d e a d a n d

sibilities.

t h a t d i d n o t o c c u p y his a t t e n t i o n a t t h e t i m e . T h e t h i n g s h e

0

S u c h e n j o y m e n t is n o t at all an e l e v a t e d feeling or a s p e cial sensitivity t o s o m e q u a l i t y o r a s p e c t o f t h i s flat i n its p a r -

r e c o u n t s d o n o t b e l o n g t o " t h e still p l e a s a n t s h a d o w o f yesterday's world [l'ombre du m o n d d'hier plaît e n c o r e ] , "

3 1

ticularity. T h e n a r r a t o r c a n n o t identify o r c o n c e i v e o f w h a t i s

but instead are things t h a t are n o t limited to the past a n d t h a t

e n j o y e d . T h e e n j o y m e n t , i n fact, i s perfectly negligible. I t h a s

c o n t i n u e to attract h i m even as he a t t e m p t s " t o p u t an end to

n o dignity. T h a t i s w h y this e g o i s m i s s u p p o r t e d o r r e c o g n i z e d

it all [ m e t t r e fin à t o u t c e l a ] " in w r i t i n g t h e récit?

1

by the subject only as a s h a d o w , an unfamiliarity " t o o close,"

W h a t t h e n a r r a t o r r e c o u n t s , a n d w o u l d like t o e n d , a r e

o r a p r o x i m i t y t h a t o v e r w h e l m s self-presence. T h e e g o i s m o f

t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t d i s t r a c t e d h i m : his seeing s o m e o n e a g a i n

t h i s p l e a s u r e i s "in-itself," i s s i n g u l a r a n d a n o n y m o u s , a n d i t

w h o m h e h a d f o r g o t t e n e v e n e x i s t e d , his m u l t i p l e d w e l l i n g s ,

r e m a i n s " i n itself" i n s o f a r as it is w i t h o u t s e l f - r e c o g n i t i o n ,

t h e s t r a n g e a n d u n p r e d i c t a b l e f l u c t u a t i o n s i n his ( a l w a y s p r e -

w i t h o u t a p l e a t of reflection, a n d is r e p u l s i v e to i n t e n t i o n a l i t y .

carious) health a n d m o o d s (neither of w h i c h he takes very

( T h e n a r r a t o r ' s fury a t t h e little girl w h o spies o n h i m i n his

seriously), o d d encounters with neighbors, comings a n d go-

a b s e n c e i s d i r e c t e d t o t h e fact t h a t she " s a w " h i m w h e n h e

ings i n a n d o u t o f r o o m s h e a n d o t h e r s e n t e r b y m i s t a k e , a n d

w a s " n o t himself," w h e n h e w a s n o t there, j u s t a s i f she h a d

his r e l a t i o n s w i t h t w o w o m e n (J. a n d N a t h a l i e ) n e i t h e r o f

s e e n his v e r y e g o i s t p l e a s u r e — w h i c h h e himself i s f o r b i d d e n

w h o m h e h a s a n y i n t e n t i o n o f m a r r y i n g (even t h o u g h h e p r o -

t o " s e e . " W h a t t h e little v o y e u r s a w , i n fact, w a s a m o m e n t o f

poses to one of them). N o n e of these things h a d a n y t h i n g to

extreme intimacy, which the n a r r a t o r can only convey to the

d o w i t h his i m p o r t a n t a n d c o n s e q u e n t i a l w o r k a s a j o u r n a l i s t

girl's m o t h e r i n c o n v e n t i o n a l a n d b a n a l t e r m s : h e said t h a t s h e

a t t h e t i m e o f t h e M u n i c h crisis. T h e s e t h i n g s h e r e c o u n t s a r e

h a d s p i e d o n h i m w h e n h e w a s i n his r o o m w i t h a w o m a n . B u t

sometimes immensely pleasurable, sometimes annoying, some-

i t w a s i n fact t h e p r e s e n c e o f his a b s e n c e t h a t h e w a s " w i t h "

t i m e s g r a v e , a n d i f h e i s n o w (after e i g h t y e a r s a n d n u m e r o u s

a n d t h a t t h e little girl s e e m e d t o b e f a s c i n a t e d by.)

a t t e m p t s ) a b l e t o w r i t e o f t h e m , i t i s b e c a u s e h e sees t h a t t h e y

T o b e perfectly p e r v e r s e a b o u t it, all o f " t h e s e t h i n g s " t h a t " h a p p e n e d t o [the n a r r a t o r ] i n 1 9 3 8 [ces é v é n e m e n t s m e s o n t

c o n c e r n only himself.

33

While the events of the w a r years are dead, these inconse-

a r e perfectly n e g l i g i b l e , u n w o r t h y o f c o m -

q u e n t i a l h a p p e n i n g s h a v e m a n a g e d t o live o n a n d r e m a i n

mentary, of narration. The narrator does not c o m m e n t on

u n d e a d a n d u n r e c o r d e d b y v i r t u e o f t h e i r insignificance. B y

e v e n t s o f s e r i o u s p u b l i c a n d historic c o n s e q u e n c e t h a t o c c u r r e d

v i r t u e o f t h e i r insignificance, t h e y e s c a p e h i s t o r i c a l s c r u t i n y

a t a r o u n d t h i s d a t e a n d t h a t " o c c u p i e d [the n a r r a t o r ' s ] a t t e n -

a n d w o r m their w a y lackadaisically into the time of his writ-

arrivés en 1 9 3 8 ] "

2 8

because those

i n g . B u t t h e y a r e n o t i m p o r t a n t t o w r i t e a b o u t n o w , either.

e v e n t s , h e tells u s , a r e " r o t t i n g a w a y , t h e i r s t o r y i s d e a d , a n d

They are w h a t the journalist did not write a b o u t at the time

t i o n all t h e t i m e [ m ' o n t o c c u p é t o u s les j o u r s ] , "

2 9

b e c a u s e they wen- inessential e v e n t s , <>i s e c o n d a r y i m p o r t a n c e ,

Ins n a r r a t o r s . A m o r e o b s c u r e d e m a n d solicits his a t t e n t i o n .

They w e r e a l r e a d y s u p p l e m e n t a r y t o t h e

A n a n i o r p h i c , (he f r a g m e n t ' s only life is its s e p a r a t i o n f r o m

t i m e o f t h e c o m i n g war. Unlike t h e M u n i c h crisis, seeing S i m o n e

any w h o l e , a n y n a r r a t i v e , a n y history. I t c a n n o t b e p u t i n p l a c e

a g a i n after he h a d f o r g o t t e n she even e x i s t e d is a m e r e trifle—

and therefore d e m a n d s from the writer something other t h a n

m e r e e v e r y d a y life.

i t h a p p e n e d w h e n n o t h i n g m u c h else w a s h a p p e n i n g . B u t i n a

f o r m . I t d e m a n d s d e s t r u c t i o n . I t d e m a n d s , a s w e say a t t h e

certain sense, these everyday events are purely historic. T h e y

o u t s e t of this c h a p t e r , t h a t writing tear itself apart from

a r e h i s t o r y p u r g e d of h i s t o r i c e v e n t s , or, t h e e v e r y d a y as t h e

moment

it

begins

to

the

speak:

p u r e p o s s i b i l i t y o f h i s t o r y . I m p o r t a n t l y , for t h e p u r p o s e o f a p p r o a c h i n g B l a n c h o t ' s aesthetics, w e m u s t r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e s e

W r i t i n g i s n o t d e s t i n e d t o leave t r a c e s , b u t t o e r a s e , b y

everyday

of writing

t r a c e s , all t r a c e s , t o d i s a p p e a r i n t h e f r a g m e n t a r y s p a c e

and of the image. T h e y a r e of s e c o n d a r y , i n e s s e n t i a l , n o n -

o f w r i t i n g m o r e definitively t h a n o n e d i s a p p e a r s i n t h e

primary importance, thus they already open the space of writ-

t o m b , o r a g a i n , t o d e s t r o y , t o d e s t r o y invisibly, w i t h -

ing. T h e y are w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n n o t h i n g h a p p e n s , just a s

out the uproar of destruction.

events

already

possess

the

characteristics

writing only h a p p e n s w h e n nothing h a p p e n s . T h e events t h a t he w r i t e s of, a n d w i s h e s to be r i d of, a r e , f r o m t h e first, sec-

[Écrire n'est p a s destiné à laisser des t r a c e s , m a i s à effa-

ondary. T h e y r e l a t e to n o t h i n g of p r i m a r y i m p o r t a n c e . If he

cer, p a r les traces, toutes traces, à disparaître d a n s l'espace

d i d n o t d a t e t h e récit for u s a n d m e n t i o n t h e M u n i c h crisis,

f r a g m e n t a i r e d e l'écriture, p l u s définitivement q u e d a n s

w o u l d w e k n o w t h a t t h e t i m e f r a m e o f t h e n a r r a t i v e i s t h e eve

la t o m b e on ne disparaît, ou encore à détruire, détruire

of World War Two? The "things" the narrator writes of were,

invisiblement, sans le v a c a r m e de la d e s t r u c t i o n . ]

36

f r o m t h e o u t s e t , " t r a c e s " i n t h e sense m a d e s o w e l l k n o w n b y All t h e " t h i n g s " t h a t " h a p p e n " in L'arrêt de mort a r e frag-

Derrida a nd Levinas. I n his e s s a y " L a réalité e t s o n o m b r e , " L e v i n a s tells u s t h a t

m e n t s , pieces o f n o w h o l e s , s e p a r a t i o n s i n defiance o f p r e s -

life solicits t h e n o v e l i s t w h e n i t a p p e a r s t o t a k e t h e f o r m o f a

e n c e s . T h a t i s w h a t gives t h i s a n d his o t h e r récits t h e i r p e c u -

novel.

3 4

(We n e e d o n l y recall t h e n a r r a t o r f r o m À la Recher-

liar a t m o s p h e r e , their " n e w thrill [frisson n o u v e a u ] , " as Levinas 3 7

che du Temps Perdu, w h o is a s t o n i s h e d to r e a d a n e w s p a p e r

says o f t h e m .

account of a m u r d e r that seems to him to be torn from the

r o o m a n d this h a s u n t o l d c o n s e q u e n c e s b e c a u s e n o t h i n g a b o u t

pages of Dostoyevsky. He then comes to the realization that,

it, o r t h e t u r m o i l i t c a u s e s , a d d s u p t o a n y t h i n g c o n s e q u e n t i a l .

o f c o u r s e , D o s t o y e v s k y ' s i n s p i r a t i o n w a s precisely t h e s a m e : a

N o t h i n g o f w h a t t h e n a r r a t o r d e s p e r a t e l y w a n t s t o say a n d b e

newspaper account of a murder that seemed to be torn from

r i d o f will r e s o l v e itself i n t o i m a g e s , t h o u g h t , c o m m e n t a r y ,

t h e p a g e s o f a n o v e l t h a t h e w o u l d t h e n sit d o w n t o w r i t e . )

3 5

Someone enters by mistake into another person's

s c e n e s , n a r r a t i v e , or, t o s u m i t u p , text. N o t h i n g o f w h a t h e

B l a n c h o t , h o w e v e r , never, n o t e v e n i n his e s s a y s , w r i t e s a t t h e

w a n t s t o say c a n b e p r o p e r l y reflected. I n t h e e n d , t h a t w h i c h

level o f f o r m . H e w r i t e s f r a g m e n t s , a n d h e e v e n w r i t e s frag-

h e w a n t s (the t r u t h , o f c o u r s e ) , h e s a y s , "is n o t c o n t a i n e d i n

m e n t a r i l y a b o u t f r a g m e n t a r y w r i t i n g . I t i s n o t f o r m t h a t solicits

t h e s e facts. I c a n i m a g i n e s u p p r e s s i n g t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r o n e s .

IV I

/\ IN

1

I I

l>

I

But il they did not h a p p e n , 01 others h a p p e n e d in their p l a c e ,

ever, luiili readet a n d w r i t e r are on the s a m e side, w h i l e di-

a n d a n s w e r i n g the s u m m o n s oi the all p o w e r f u l a f f i r m a t i o n

verging from both oi t h e m is the w r i t i n g , as S t e v e n S h a v i r o

w h i c h is united with m e , they take on the same m e a n i n g a n d

h a s noted.

t h e s t o r y i s t h e s a m e [ n ' e s t p a s d a n s ces faits. Les faits e u x -

mort—J.'s d e a t h , r e t u r n t o life, a n d " s e c o n d " d e a t h ; t h e b o m b -

m ê m e s , j e p u i s rêver d e les s u p p r i m e r . M a i s , s'ils n ' o n t p a s e u

ing o f Paris a n d t h e n a r r a t o r ' s t a k i n g shelter w i t h N a t h a l i e

lieu, d ' a u t r e s , à leur p l a c e , a r r i v e n t et, à l ' a p p e l de l'affirmation

a n d p r o p o s i n g m a r r i a g e t o h e r i n a frenzied a n d foreign l a n -

t o u t e - p u i s s a n t e q u i est u n i e à m o i , ils p r e n n e n t le m ê m e s e n s

guage; the return of S i m o n e — e a c h of these incidents is out-

41

Each oi t h e i n c i d e n t s w r i t t e n of in L'arrêt de

T h a t is w h y L'arrêt de mort is n o t

side t h e o t h e r s a n d e a c h i s m e m o r a b l e o n l y i n s o f a r a s e a c h

a m a s t e r f u l a t t e m p t t o recollect facts a n d i m a g e s t h a t a t t h e

d e t a c h e s itself f r o m a n y t i m e f r a m e . T h e t h i n g s w r i t t e n a b o u t

t i m e seemed negligible b u t t h a t n o w h e l p u s t o e n v i s i o n 1 9 3 8

in t h i s récit will n o t f o r m a n a r r a t i v e . E a c h i n c i d e n t is an inter-

m o r e r i c h l y a n d m o r e a c c u r a t e l y . L'arrêt de mort is n o t a r e -

r u p t i o n o f s o m e t h i n g else. I n t h i s sense t h e y d i s p e n s e w i t h t h e

c o u n t i n g at all. T h e récit gives us a un frisson nouveau b e -

a u t h o r a n d p u s h h i m t o t h e s a m e side a s t h e r e a d e r w h o s e

c a u s e it is c u r i o u s l y a n d u n c o m f o r t a b l y alive.

inability to connect the events told of echo the author's o w n

et l ' h i s t o i r e est la m ê m e ] . "

3 8

I f t h e n a r r a t o r i s a b l e t o s u p p r e s s c e r t a i n facts a n d a l l o w

i m p o t e n c e . H e n c e , L'arrêt de mort is n o t a W o r k . It is, as

others to replace t h e m it is because he writes w i t h o u t any final

B l a n c h o t p u t s it, désœuvrement. It is w n w o r k e d , idle, a n d in

o r a u t h e n t i c j u d g m e n t . E i t h e r this fact o r t h a t o n e c a n " t e l l "

this r e g a r d B l a n c h o t ' s aesthetics s q u a r e s perfectly w i t h Levinas's

t h e s t o r y a n d t h e s t o r y will r e m a i n " t h e s a m e " b e c a u s e " w h a t

a n a l y s i s of a r t . L'arrêt de mort is w o r k - l e s s . It is an i m i t a t i o n

h a p p e n e d " i s a u t o n y m i c . I t i s precisely t h e r e s i s t a n c e t o d e t e r -

of t h o u g h t , a s e m b l a n c e of b e i n g , a n d it is w r i t t e n in a s i m u -

m i n a t e form. T h e n a r r a t o r struggles against, a n d also unites

l a t e d l a n g u a g e (i.e., a l a n g u a g e t h a t d o e s n o t c o m m u n i c a t e

with, this a n a m o r p h i a as if s u m m o n e d . We are told, in a post-

but that simultaneously shows and conceals; w o r d s appear on

s c r i p t (or a s u r p l u s t h a t w a s p r e s e n t a t t h e e n d o f t h e 1 9 4 8

t h e p a g e only to sink back into their o w n image, so t h a t the

version of the text, deleted in the second edition in 1 9 7 1 , a n d

difference b e t w e e n b e i n g a n d a p p e a r i n g i s e r a s e d ) .

t h e n r e a t t a c h e d for Lydia D a v i s ' s beautiful E n g l i s h t r a n s l a tion in 1978) that if we can " i m a g i n e " the h a n d that writes

T h e text we study here does not preserve anything. It is i n t e n d e d t o b e d e s t r u c t i v e : " t o e r a s e , b y t r a c e s , all t r a c e s . "

4 2

3 9

W e will n o t b e a b l e t o c o n c e i v e o f w h a t " t h r i l l s " u s a s w e r e a d

Serious because the h a n d that writes the sentences is dead,

B l a n c h o t . H i s récit i s n o t w h a t u s e d t o b e c a l l e d a " p l u r a l "

a b s e n t . M o r e a b s e n t even t h a n t h e e n t o m b e d L a z a r u s (as Blan-

t e x t . It d o e s n o t offer itself to a v a r i e t y of r e a d i n g s , no o n e of

t h e s t o r y t h e n r e a d i n g will b e c o m e for u s " a s e r i o u s t a s k . "

chot writes elsewhere)

40

w h o m w e c a n o n l y i m a g i n e a s living

a n d n o t a s h e really is.

w h i c h w o u l d be authentic a n d decidable, leaving the reader adrift in playfulness.

43

I n s t e a d , t h e t e x t " p e r f o r m s " its o w n

L'arrêt de mort d o e s n o t a w a i t r e a d e r l y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . It

disappearance. It "puts an end to it all" in writing, but by

does not preserve or e n t o m b a discourse the reader is obliged

putting the end in writing it remains w i t h o u t an end the nar-

to l i b e r a t e . It is itself t h e very s p a c e of d i v e r g e n c e . M o s t b a -

r a t o r c o u l d p u t b e h i n d h i m a n d limit t o t h e p a s t . T h e récit

nally, it is t h e d i v e r g e n c e of r e a d e r a n d writer. In a s e n s e , h o w -

t h u s d i s a p p e a r s b y s e e k i n g another e n d — a n e n d y e t t o c o m e

in a t i m e not yet. L'arrêt de mort is the "place" oi t h e absence of a p r o p e r e n d , a n d it h o l d s this p l a c e like an e c h o t h a t p r e c e d e s t h e s o u n d it r e s o u n d s . T h a t is to say, in r e a d i n g t h e B l a n c h o t i a n récit, we h e a r t h e r e v e r b e r a t i o n of a s o u n d n o t y e t h e a r d , f r o m a t i m e b e y o n d " m y d e a t h . " T h e t e x t i s already an echo of a s o u n d (a speaking, a writing) to c o m e , b u t t h a t will n e v e r b e p r e s e n t b e c a u s e i t will itself e c h o t h e e c h o t h e t e x t a l r e a d y is. N o t a p l u r a l t e x t , L'arrêt de mort is a t e x t e m p t i e d o f all p r e s e n c e a n d , w h a t i s m o r e , i t v i o l e n t l y e m p t i e s t i m e of all p r e s e n c e . P u t m o r e s i m p l y a n d m o r e a b r u p t l y , L'arrêt d e mort d e s t r o y s t i m e . T h e p a s t — t h e t h i n g s t h a t h a p p e n e d t o t h e n a r r a t o r i n 1 9 3 8 — a r e n o t offered t o t h e r e a d e r , t o t h e p r e s e n t , b u t i n s t e a d offered t o a f u t u r i t y w h o s e c o m i n g o u r r e a d i n g a l r e a d y e c h o e s . T h e récit i s a b s o l u t e l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o " m y t i m e , " " m y d e a t h . " It skips over the present m o m e n t . T h a t which "thrills" us then, when we read Blanchot, is the divergence a n d disjunction of past a n d future. Past a n d future are unhinged because there is no present to insure con-

l i m e il a wail s is ihe lime oi I he forgetting oi l i m e , of indiffere n c e lo l u n e . Il is m this sense that the B l a n c h o t i a n t e x t is so extraordinarily radical. His writing addresses a time outside initiative. But this t i m e t o c o m e — a t i m e w h e n t i m e i s f o r g o t t e n — i s n o t a c h r o n o l o g i c a l e p o c h after m y d e a t h . T h e t i m e awaited is always h a p p e n i n g in everyday events t h a t fragment a n d s e p a r a t e t h e m s e l v e s f r o m a W h o l e , like the events of L'arrêt de mort t h a t " c o u l d h a v e h a p p e n e d at a m u c h e a r l i e r t i m e [car t o u t a p u r e m o n t e r à u n m o m e n t b i e n p l u s a n c i e n ] . " await this time

is to

await forgetting

4 4

(l'attente l'oubli)

To as

B l a n c h o t s o s u c c i n c t l y p u t i t i n o n e o f his m a n y r e m a r k a b l e titles. B u t f o r g e t t i n g i s n o t a p u n c t u a l e v e n t . I t d o e s n o t p r o p erly a r r i v e a t all. H a v i n g n o d u r a t i o n , i t i s o v e r b e f o r e i t b e g i n s , a n d i t closes i n o n itself a n d s e p a r a t e s itself f r o m t i m e a s a c h r o n o l o g i c a l flow. F o r g e t t i n g defects f r o m t i m e a n d f r o m i n i t i a t i v e . W h e n t h e t i m e o f f o r g e t t i n g c o m e s i t will s i m u l t a n e o u s l y h a v e b e e n f o r g o t t e n a n d s o t o o will h a v e b e e n f o r g o t t e n its a n t i c i p a t i o n .

t i n u i t y . (It is, i n its w a y , p r o f o u n d l y p o l i t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . T h e

L e t us n o t e t h a t in a d d i t i o n to a t h r i l l , L'arrêt de mort is

evacuation of the present renders the future truly f u t u r a l —

a l s o t h e site o f e x t r a o r d i n a r y s t r u g g l e s : J.'s s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t

i.e., a r a d i c a l l y u n c e r t a i n , b u t a l r e a d y t o o near, futurity.) T h e

d e a t h , t h e n a r r a t o r ' s s t r u g g l e t o w r i t e t h e t e x t after s e v e r a l

t h r i l l is t h e thrill of p r o x i m i t y . T h e t e x t I r e a d is w i t h d r a w n

a t t e m p t s , his struggle w i t h a n d a g a i n s t t h e " t h o u g h t " t o w h i c h

f r o m m y p r e s e n c e . I t is, a s i t w e r e , b e h i n d g l a s s : t o o c l o s e a n d

h e gives " a l l [his] s t r e n g t h [ t o u t e m a f o r c e ] , "

a l s o glacially indifferent t o m e , t o m y t i m e . A s I r e a d , I e x p e -

to m a i n t a i n a relationship with a w o m a n of w h o m , he says,

rience the time of the absence of time, time w i t h o u t a present.

very seriously, " I c a n say t h a t b y g e t t i n g i n v o l v e d w i t h N a t h a l i e

Eternally caressed by futurity, this time will never (have)

I w a s h a r d l y g e t t i n g i n v o l v e d w i t h a n y o n e [je n e m e liais

e n t e r ( e d ) t h e p r e s e n t b e c a u s e i t will a l w a y s h a v e r e m a i n e d e n

p r e s q u e avec p e r s o n n e ] . "

deçà

c u r i o u s i n a b i l i t y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e facts t h a t w o u l d p r o p e r l y

du

temps.

T h e f r a g m e n t s t h e t e x t r e c o r d s d o n o t — l e t u s b e clear a b o u t t h i s — a w a i t a t i m e t o c o m e i n w h i c h t h e y will b e s e w n i n t o a W h o l e , a W o r k . L'arrêt de mort d o e s n o t a w a i t its w e l c o m e

4 6

4 5

a n d his s t r u g g l e

B u t let u s a l s o n o t e t h e n a r r a t o r ' s

represent these struggles. We have already discussed the anam o r p h i a o f t h e " s t o r y . " Let u s n o w c o n s i d e r this i n light o f the narrator's worldly involvements.

i n t o a c o m m u n i t y , c u l t u r e , c i v i l i z a t i o n , or e v e n a l i t e r a t u r e .

In a certain sense, the n a r r a t o r seems cold a n d indifferent

T h e indifference t h e t e x t s h o w s t o t h e p r e s e n t tells u s t h a t t h e

t o his r o l e a s t h e n a r r a t o r w h o w o u l d j u d i c i o u s l y select t h o s e

d e t a i l s a n d that l a n g u a g e w i n c h can fully a p p r e c i a t e t h e val-

sary lor linn to w i n e and to remain face-to-face w i t h his re-

i a n c e of J.'s fight to live, as well as the relation b e t w e e n t h e

s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , w h i c h he s a w clearly. To w r i t e w a s to live w i t h

e v e n t s h e recites a n d t h e t i m e s i n w h i c h they o c c u r (i.e., t h e

his t o r m e n t a m i to affirm it to the p o i n t of l a u g h t e r , j u s t as t h e

eve o f t h e w a r t h a t n o d o u b t affected t h e m all, n o t t o m e n t i o n

n a r r a t o r of L'arrêt de mort lives w i t h a n d loves t h e " t h o u g h t "

all t h e w o r l d o u t s i d e t h e s m a l l circle o f c h a r a c t e r s w e r e a d o f

t h a t "lives a n d acts like a p e r s o n even if it isn't e x a c t l y like

i n this récit). N o r d o e s t h e n a r r a t o r t a k e t h e t i m e t o e x p l a i n

o n e [ n ' e s t p a s t o u t à fait u n e p e r s o n n e , m ê m e si elle agit et vit

w h a t t h e first s e c t i o n o f t h e récit h a s t o d o w i t h t h e s e c o n d .

comme elle]."

4 8

F u r t h e r , t h e n a r r a t o r s e e m s i n d i f f e r e n t t o his o w n h e a l t h a n d ,

A t t h e e n d o f t h e récit, N a t h a l i e t e a r s a p a r t t h e p r e t e n s e s

w h e n h e w r i t e s o f J.'s final h o u r s a n d h e r e x t r a o r d i n a r y c o u r -

s h e a n d t h e n a r r a t o r lived u n d e r i n t h e d e l i r i o u s d a y s t h a t

a g e , h e r e t a i n s a c e r t a i n j o u r n a l i s t i c a l o o f n e s s t h a t is, a t t h e

followed the insincere promise of marriage he m a d e to her in

v e r y least, d i s a r m i n g .

the M e t r o as Paris w a s b o m b e d . D u r i n g t h a t time, the n a r r a -

All t h i s , i n fact, i s a n effect o f a n a m o r p h i a . W h a t w e r e a d

t o r w a s s t r o n g l y m o v e d b y g r e a t e m o t i o n a n d affection for

h e r e is n o t a w h o l e . It is n o t a s t o r y o/"J's c o u r a g e , t h e w a r , h i s

N a t h a l i e . H e felt a " l i m i t l e s s i m p a t i e n c e t o s p e n d t i m e [ i m p a -

life, o r a n y t h i n g else. T h e e n t i r e récit r e m a i n s a t t h e t h r e s h o l d

t i e n c e s a n s limite d ' u n t e m p s c o m m u n ] " w i t h h e r a n d h e i s

of a story. T h e n a r r a t o r s t o p s s h o r t of p r e s e n t i n g s o m e It t h a t

c e r t a i n she felt a n e x t r e m e a t t r a c t i o n t o h i m a s w e l l .

t h e s t o r y w o u l d b e a b o u t . All t h a t h e w r i t e s i s j u s t a n t e r i o r t o

that passion he asks:

49

But of

t h e s t o r y , j u s t en deçà t h e story. A n d y e t he tells us e v e r y t h i n g , a s h e p r o m i s e s t o d o o n t h e o p e n i n g p a g e . H e tells u s e v e r y -

— w h a t d o e s i t m e a n ? A n d t h e w o r d ecstasy? W h o h a s

t h i n g b e c a u s e e v e r y t h i n g i s o u t s i d e t h e story. N o t h i n g o f w h a t

e x p e r i e n c e d t h e m o s t i n t e n s e feeling? O n l y I h a v e , a n d

h e w a n t e d t o say w a s ever p r o p e r l y f o r m e d . I t w a s s u d d e n ,

I k n o w t h a t it is t h e m o s t glacial of all, b e c a u s e it h a s

accidental a n d m o v i n g because it w a s unprepared-for, unful-

t r i u m p h e d o v e r a n i m m e n s e defeat, a n d i s e v e n n o w

filled, a n d failed. A n d i t i s precisely t h e failure o f t h e s t o r y a n d

t r i u m p h i n g o v e r it, a n d a t e a c h i n s t a n t , a n d a l w a y s , s o

t h e w e a k n e s s o f l a n g u a g e t o say i t t h a t c o n t i n u a l l y e x p o s e s

t h a t t i m e n o l o n g e r exists for it.

h i m t o it, t o t h e s e u n p r e p a r e d - f o r e v e n t s t h a t a l t e r e d h i m b e yond comprehension. W h e n Blanchot writes on Kafka, he

[quel est s o n sens? Et le m o t délire? Q u i c o n n a î t le

m e n t i o n s K a f k a ' s lifelong s e l f - r e c r i m i n a t i o n s , h i s e t h i c a l c r i -

s e n t i m e n t le p l u s g r a n d ? M o i seul, et je sais q u ' i l est le

47

p l u s g l a c é , c a r il a t r i o m p h é d ' u n e i m m e n s e d é f a i t e , et

B l a n c h o t p o i n t s o u t , h o w e v e r , t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o flee o n e ' s

m a i n t e n a n t encore il en t r i o m p h e et à c h a q u e instant

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s by fleeing into t h e w o r l d , i n t o o n e ' s r o l e as a

e t t o u j o u r s , d e s o r t e q u e p o u r lui i l n ' y a p l u s d e

m a n of the world: diplomat, bureaucrat, journalist, university

temps.]

ses, his c o n f e s s i o n s o f failure, a n d his c h r o n i c i n d e c i s i v e n e s s .

5 0

professor, or h u s b a n d . Even those w h o m o s t zealously a n d e n e r g e t i c a l l y p u r s u e n o b l e political a n d ethical e n d s c a n " h i d e "

T h e n a r r a t o r felt m o v e d t o live w i t h N a t h a l i e , b u t she d e -

like J o n a h . B u t K a f k a ' s i n d e c i s i v e n e s s a n d failure w e r e n e c e s -

finitively d i s r u p t e d his e n t h u s i a s m a n d " w a n t e d t o t e a r a p a r t

H

I , /\ IN » . I I

l )

I

'

1

w i t h a / c a l o n s hand the pretenses [they] were living under

Venir), w h e n I une is no l o n g e r anchored in the p r e s e n t , in c o n -

[ n ' a i t rien v o u l u de p l u s q u e déchirer, d ' u n e m a i n j a l o u s e , les

tinuity.

a p p a r e n c e s d a n s lesquelles n o u s v i v o n s ] , " a n d recall h i m t o

This l u n e will h a v e been a t o p i c . W h e n w i t h d r a w a l

i n t o t h e w o r l d will have been f o r g o t t e n , o n e ' s r e l a t i o n t o p l a c e ,

his " p l a c e [ l i e u ] . " ' She t h e n h a s a p l a s t e r c a s t o f her h e a d a n d

t o r o o t e d n e s s , o r t o h o m e will h a v e b e e n r u p t u r e d b y t h e h y p o -

h a n d s m a d e for h i m . T h a t i s t o say, s h e offers h i m h e r e t e r n a l

critical c o n t i n u i t y of p r o x i m i t y t h a t n e i t h e r u n i t e s i n t o a w h o l e

d e a t h , a gift (as Levinas's a n a l y s i s of d e a t h s h o w s ) t h a t she

n o r s c a t t e r s i n t o d i s t i n c t p a r t s , b u t i n s t e a d e x p o s e s o n e t o all

herself will n e v e r e x p e r i e n c e , will n e v e r c r o s s o v e r i n t o . S h e

the others such that any one is an echo of each, a n d n o n e is

offers h i m a s his " p l a c e " t h e t i m e o f h e r d y i n g a n d its glaciality,

original.

5

w h i c h i s a l w a y s t h e m o s t p a s s i o n a t e feeling o f all since i t e x -

B u t i s t h i s n o t j u s t a n o t h e r role i n t h e w o r l d ? H o w i s i t n o t

c l u d e s t h e o n e - w h o - d i e s f r o m it. She offers h i m a t i m e in w h i c h

j u s t a n o t h e r v e r s i o n of t h e p o e t as c o n s c i e n c e of his t i m e s ? A

she i s a l r e a d y r e m o v e d f r o m t h e w o r l d . I f t h e B l a n c h o t i a n

c o n s c i e n c e w i t h o u t c o n t e n t s , if y o u like, or c o n t e n t l e s s n e s s as

n a r r a t o r comes across to us as aloof a n d detached it is be-

c o n s c i e n c e , o r a s t h e p u r e p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o n s c i e n c e (or e v e n —

c a u s e h e i s n o l o n g e r himself. T h e n a r r a t o r i s affected b y a n -

w h y not?—Gewissen-haben-wollen), but a conscience none-

o t h e r t i m e i n w h i c h h e i s a b s e n t , a s w e shall see m o r e defini-

theless, a n d thus assigning the p o e t a role in given society

tively i n o u r n e x t s e c t i o n .

w h e t h e r o r n o t h e o r she likes it. P e r h a p s this i s t h e c a s e , b u t

T o w r i t e o f these t h i n g s i s t o r e m a i n a t t h e t h r e s h o l d o f t h e

t h e r e i s n o r o o m i n t h e w o r l d for h i m o r h e r w h o , w r i t i n g ,

w o r l d a n d t o live w i t h o u t f o r m — i n t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e B o o k ,

refuses t h e w o r l d . N o r i s t h e r e a n y r o o m o u t s i d e t h e w o r l d .

a s B l a n c h o t p u t s it. I t i s t o r e m a i n a t t h e t h r e s h o l d o f l a n -

H e n c e , t h e r e is w r i t i n g , w h i c h is neither/nor. N e i t h e r c o n s c i e n c e

g u a g e , of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . N o t at all a refusal of r e s p o n s i b i l -

n o r its l a c k .

ity, w r i t i n g u n i t e s w i t h it, refusing t o f l e e its e x o r b i t a n c e . W r i t ing is the imitation of thought, the simulation of action, a n d t h e c o n t i n u a l e x p o s u r e t o responsibility, t h a t i s t o say, t o t h e

En deca du

temps

O t h e r . W r i t i n g is B l a n c h o t ' s ethics a n d his p o l i t i c s . It is f o r m -

T h e t i m e o f t h e " m e a n w h i l e " (I'entretemps), w h i c h

less w r i t i n g , h o w e v e r . I t i s r a d i c a l l y a m b i g u o u s a n d i t u n i t e s

we b r o u g h t o u t in our discussion of Levinas's aesthetics a n d

w i t h this a m b i g u i t y . T r y t o s u m m a r i z e B l a n c h o t ' s e s s a y s . T a k e

e t h i c s , i s o f obsessive i m p o r t a n c e t o B l a n c h o t ' s m e d i t a t i o n s

L'espace littéraire for e x a m p l e . T h e title of t h e b o o k a n d t h e

on art and community. T h e time of the " m e a n w h i l e " is the

essays i n i t c o u l d h a r d l y b e b r o a d e r i n s c o p e a n d m o r e i n c o n -

time " p r e s e r v e d " in the w o r k of art (Lévinas), the time of

clusive, verging on interpretation b u t w i t h o u t " p r o d u c i n g " a

writing and the time of dying (Blanchot), and also, we think,

" r e a d i n g . " B u t this i s precisely t h e s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t t h e B o o k ,

t h e t i m e of la comunità che viene ( A g a m b e n ) . In h i s d i s c u s -

t h e refusal of t h e p r e s e n t . It is a s t r u g g l e t h a t t a k e s p l a c e as a

sion of T i a n a n m e n , A g a m b e n observes t h a t the d e m o n s t r a -

m e t i c u l o u s indifference to a given c o m m u n i t y . E m p t i e d of all

t o r s m a d e few c o n c r e t e d e m a n d s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h e s e

determinate contents, Blanchot's workless w o r k s are already

were readily g r a n t e d .

t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a t i m e to c o m e , a b o o k to c o m e (le livre à

act in o p e n confrontation to, or competition with, the state

5 2

He points o u t that the students did n o t

o v e r recognizable issues. Instead, Agamben says: "The nov-

l.i mort, arrache celle-ci a I'fitat de chose ou elle voudrait se

elty of the coining politics is that it will no longer he ¡1 struggle

pacifier]."

for

be-

is w h y all suicides, h o w e v e r beautiful, fail to a t t a i n their s o u g h t -

insurmount-

after finale). That d e a t h does n o t c o m p l e t e t h e m o v e m e n t o f

the

d y i n g d i s t u r b s t h e often t o o facilely u n d e r s t o o d n o t i o n o f h u -

the

tween able

conquest and the

State

disjunction

and

control the

of the

State,

hut a

struggle

non-State

(humanity),

an

whatever

singularity

and

between

State

54

Even death does not b r i n g an e n d to d y i n g ( w h i c h

è

m a n finitude: t h e e q u a t i o n o f d e a t h w i t h r e s t a n d p e a c e . F a r

che essa non sarà più lotta per la conquista o il controllo dello

f r o m s e t t i n g a l i m i t t o d y i n g , d e a t h magnifies its i n c o m p l e t i o n ,

organization stato, zione

ma

[Poiché

il fatto

lotta fra lo stato

incolmabile

delle

nuovo

della

e il non-stato

singolarità

politica

che

disgiun-

p l a c i n g it, a s i t w e r e , u n d e r g l a s s . Like t h e t i m e o f w r i t i n g a n d

dell'organiz-

of the image, it never achieves the present m o m e n t . "It c a n n o t

(l'umanità),

qualunque

e

viene

5 5

zazione statale]."" (We will t a k e up A g a m b e n ' s politics at m o r e

give itself t h e o t h e r s h o r e [ne p e u t p a s s e d o n n e r l ' a u t r e r i v e ] , "

l e n g t h i n o u r n e x t c h a p t e r , b u t w e w a n t t o say i n a d v a n c e t h a t

Levinas says. T h e time of writing a n d the time of dying dis-

he seems to be describing a politics w i t h o u t d e t e r m i n a t e con-

r u p t the continuity of time by disjoining past a n d future. R a d i -

t e n t s , a n d a s u s p e n s i o n of p o l i t i c a l t i m e as it is o r g a n i z e d by

cally p o i g n a n t , I'entretemps is r a d i c a l l y u n c e r t a i n , r a d i c a l l y

t h e S t a t e . In this i n t e r r u p t i o n , we g l i m p s e a t i m e à venir, b e -

unforeseeable time.

y o n d , or, en degà S t a t e - t i m e . In T i a n a n m e n S q u a r e A g a m b e n

T h e time of writing a n d the time of dying are the time of

g l i m p s e d a n i m a g e , i n B l a n c h o t ' s sense; a n i m a g e t h a t , i n ef-

radical divergence of past from future. They are discontinu-

fect, d e s t r o y e d S t a t e - t i m e , a n d this i s w h y t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n

o u s t i m e . T h e t i m e o f d y i n g i s o p e n t o a t i m e t h a t will n e v e r

w a s s o m a s s i v e l y c r u s h e d a n d yet h a s c o n t i n u e d t o h a u n t t h e

h a v e b e e n , since i t will n o t h a v e p a s s e d t h r o u g h a p r e s e n t .

S t a t e ever since.)

This time, w h i c h is an openness o n t o a time w i t h o u t a present,

T h e r e is a notion we w a n t to bring o u t in this section of o u r s t u d y t h a t i s essential t o A g a m b e n ' s t h o u g h t b u t i s a n t i c i p a t e d in m a n y pages of writing by Blanchot. It is the n o t i o n of a n a b s o l u t e d i s j u n c t i o n . " P r e s e r v e d " i n t h e w o r k o f a r t (or t h e i c o n , a s L é v i n a s p r e f e r s t o call t h e a r t w o r k ) , t h e r e i s t h e t i m e o f w r i t i n g o r t h e t i m e o f d y i n g t h a t " d o e s n o t let itself b e s i t u a t e d or affirmed in r e l a t i o n to life [ne se laisse s i t u e r ou affirmer d a n s u n r a p p o r t d e v i e ] , " a n d t h a t " d o e s n o t localize itself as an e v e n t , n o r d o e s it last in t h e w a y of a t e m p o r a l b e c o m i n g ; d y i n g d o e s n o t last, d o e s n o t e n d , a n d , p r o l o n g i n g itself in d e a t h , t e a r s this a w a y f r o m t h e s t a t e of a t h i n g in w h i c h i t w o u l d like t o r e s t peacefully [ne s e localise p a s d a n s un é v é n e m e n t , ni ne d u r e à la faeton d ' u n d e v e n i r t e m p o r e l : m o u r i r n e d u r e p a s , n e s e t e r m i n e p a s et, s e p r o l o n g e a n t d a n s

i s b o t h t o o r e m o t e a n d t o o near. Void o f d u r a t i o n , t h i s d i s c o n t i n u o u s t i m e h o l l o w s itself o u t , e r a s e s , o r e x s c r i b e s itself. I a m n o t c o m p l e t e l y sensible o r c o n s c i o u s o f it. R a t h e r , t h i s d i s c o n t i n u i t y o r r a d i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y i n s i n u a t e s itself i n t o c o n t i n u o u s t i m e a n d i s s m u g g l e d i n t o c o n s c i o u s n e s s u n a w a r e s , just a s a skilled s e d u c e r c a n i n a u g u r a t e a s e d u c t i o n i n e v e n t h e m o s t b a n a l c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h o u t o n c e b e t r a y i n g his o r h e r i n t e n t i o n s . A s s h o u l d b e all t o o o b v i o u s , w e s p e a k h e r e o f s o m e t h i n g e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y s u b t l e . I n fact, this v o i d - t i m e i s t h e v e r y hollowing out of time that makes continuity possible in the f i r s t p l a c e . I t i s like a n e m p t y s p e e c h o r a n i m a g i n a r y c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t p r e c e d e s all i n t e r s u b j e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s . U n a b l e a s w e a r e to s p e a k of it, it is n e v e r t h e l e s s affirmed in all s p e a k i n g . V o i d - t i m e is i m a g i n a r y t i m e . In L e v i n a s it is t h e t i m e of t h e

dire t h a t precedes (.'very dit a n d t h a t is not entirely absorbed

and Blanchot h a v e uncovered a n e w mode ol t h o u g h t , or a

i n t o a n y dit. In t h e w o r k of a r t , the t i m e of w r i t i n g r e s o n a t e s ,

n e w category, or an intuition hitherto unattested to in p h i l o s -

j u s t a s t h e s t a t u e s q u e c o r p s e magnifies t h e t i m e o f d y i n g .

ophy. To be sure, all of Levinas's c o n c e r n w i t h an autrement

If d e a t h is, or if t h e d e a d a r e , a b s o l u t e l y m a s t e r f u l , it is

qu'être refers ( o b l i q u e l y ) to this en deçà, a n d we m u s t t h i n k

b e c a u s e o n e sees i n i t t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y p l a c e i n t h e w o r l d .

a b o u t his éthique in light of t h i s . L i k e w i s e , all of B l a n c h o t ' s

T h e d e a d r e m a i n there, r e m a i n p e r c e p t i b l e , y e s , b u t o n l y i n s o -

e n i g m a s c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h this " h i t h e r s i d e " a s w e l l . B u t n e i -

far a s t h e y r i g o r o u s l y resist a n y r e l a t i o n t o life, t o c o n t i n u i t y .

t h e r Levinas (in spite of a p p e a r a n c e s ) n o r B l a n c h o t h a s c o n -

T h e y refuse t o " d e p a r t , " a s life s p e a k s o f t h e m , a n d t h e eld-

structed a n y t h i n g like a corpus of t h o u g h t o u t of a " d i s c o v e r y . "

erly w o m a n w e s p o k e o f i n o u r i n t r o d u c t i o n m u s t h a v e h a d

N e i t h e r of t h e m m a k e a c o n t r i b u t i o n to arts a n d letters in a n y

a n infinite r e s p e c t for t h i s r e s i s t a n c e h e r h u s b a n d m a n i f e s t e d .

c o n v e n t i o n a l s e n s e , a n d this m a k e s a n y r e a d i n g o f t h e m u n -

O n e sees i n t h e d e a d , a s i n t h e w o r k o f a r t , a n i n s u r m o u n t a b l e

c o n v e n t i o n a l l y difficult a s w e l l . I n o u r o w n w r i t i n g t o this

d i s j u n c t i o n . O n e c o m e s face-to-face w i t h Ventretemps: a t i m e

p o i n t w e h a v e b e e n d r a w n i n t o t h e c o m p l i c a t i o n s o f a n y ex-

" w i t h o u t m e " a n d b e y o n d " m y d e a t h . " T h e rites t h a t sur-

plication du

r o u n d t h e d e a d a r e i n t e n d e d , like p h i l o s o p h y a n d c r i t i c i s m , t o

a n d o x y m o r o n i c a l l y , a s d o L e v i n a s a n d B l a n c h o t . T h e expli-

" s k i p o v e r " this e m p t y i n t e r v a l a n d m a k e o f d e a t h a n e v e n t i n

cation w e i n t e n d e d r e m a i n s s t a l l e d , a n d i s still n o t p a r t o f a n y

texte. We o u r s e l v e s

sometimes write obliquely

life a n d w i t h i n t h e c o n t i n u i t y life r e g a r d s itself a s . B u t n o t h i n g

p r o p e r l y critical c o n t e x t . I n fact, w e h a v e b e e n r e p e a t e d l y re-

c o u l d b e m o r e fragile t h a n t h i s c o n t i n u i t y . F o r p r e c e d i n g i t

pulsed b y B l a n c h o t ' s w o r k , u n a b l e t o b r i n g t o light t h e " s p a c e

(and preserved and exhibited in the cadaver) is the p a r o d y of

of literature" he describes so well. For no matter where one

c o n t i n u i t y t h a t is t h e t i m e of d y i n g . It is a p a r o d y of e t e r n a l

tries t o p l a c e B l a n c h o t — w i t h H e g e l , w i t h N i e t z s c h e , w i t h H e i -

life. In this s e n s e , o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e c a d a v e r is a p a r o d y

degger, F r e u d , K a f k a , o r e v e n L e v i n a s — h e v a n i s h e s .

57

This

o f i n t e r subjectivity. W h a t i s a l w a y s d i s t u r b i n g a b o u t o u r rela-

r e a d e r t h u s i s exiled: n o l o n g e r a n d n o t yet e x p l i c a t i n g , n o

t i o n w i t h t h e d e a d i s t h a t this r e l a t i o n e x p o s e s a n a l w a y s p r i o r

l o n g e r a n d n o t y e t r e a d i n g . W e e x p e r i e n c e , i n spite o f m u l t i p l e

r e l a t i o n t h a t i s n e v e r c o n s c i o u s l y i n c l u d e d i n o u r living rela-

p r e c a u t i o n s , a r e m a r k a b l e failure at t h e h e a r t of a n y a p p r o a c h

tions with the other person. Exposed in the corpse is the time

t o t h e B l a n c h o t i a n œuvre. Yet i t i s i n o u r failure t h a t w e " e n -

o f d y i n g t h a t silently i n v e r t s o u r c o n s c i o u s r e l a t i o n s . T h e d e a d

c o u n t e r " t h e w o r k ( a n d t h i s i s w h a t w i l l e t e r n a l l y justify

expose a scandalous discontinuity that precedes continuous

S h a v i r o ' s r e a d i n g o f B l a n c h o t i n t e r m s o f affect a n d m e t a m o r -

time. O u r relation w i t h the dead necessarily confronts us w i t h

phosis).

58

Failure is a n a m o r p h i c a n d everyone w h o fails—at

d i s c o n t i n u i t y p a r e x c e l l e n c e : a t i m e w i t h o u t a p r e s e n t , en deca

anything—struggles against the myriad of chance, uniting with

du temps, r e m a i n i n g a l w a y s at t h e t h r e s h o l d of living, d u r a -

i t like a n a c c o m p l i c e o n e s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y lives w i t h . F a i l u r e

tional time.

o p e n s t h e s p a c e o f l i t e r a t u r e b e c a u s e failure h a s m a n y r e a s o n s

T h e w o r k of art, likewise, exhibits this "hither side" of t i m e t h a t L é v i n a s says i s " i n t o l e r a b l e t o t h o u g h t [ i n t o l e r a b l e à la pensée]."

5 6

We must not be tempted to think that Lévinas

w h e n o n l y o n e w o u l d suffice. Still, this is o n l y a p a r t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n . To r e a d B l a n c h o t ' s récits o r his essays i s t o h a v e t o c o m e r e p e a t e d l y t o e x t r e m e

Il I

A N < .

1

I O I

p o i n t s o f u n c e r t a i n t y , p o i n t s w h e r e o n e really d o c s n o t k n o w

yet w i t h o u t the attempt o n e will never c o m e to t h e m o m e n t of

w h a t to say a n d w h e r e o n e is a priori d e p r i v e d of a n y m e a n s

u n c e r t a i n t y that i s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , a n d n o t b y a n a l o g y , t h e

t o say a n y t h i n g . T h e s e m o m e n t s o f e n i g m a a n d f r a g m e n t a t i o n

t i m e o f d y i n g a n d its e x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d s t u p e f y i n g a t t r a c t i v e -

a r e s o n u m e r o u s i n B l a n c h o t ' s w o r k t h a t w e m u s t say t h e y a r e

n e s s . F o r t h e c o r p s e , m a k e no m i s t a k e , is attractive par excel-

t h e very " s u b s t a n c e " o f it. U n c e r t a i n t y o r a m b i g u i t y a r e p o i n t s

lence, e v e n as it r e p u l s e s .

at w h i c h an encounter, a reading, a discourse, can begin to

W h e n t h e n a r r a t o r of L'arrêt de mort, t h r o u g h t h e force

t a k e p l a c e a n d w h e r e t h e w o r d s t h a t will s p e a k i t c a n t r u l y

o f his love a n d d e s i r e , b r i n g s J . b a c k f r o m t h e d e a d , w e r e a d

begin t o b e f o u n d b e c a u s e t h e y c o m e f r o m n o w h e r e . T h e y

t h a t h e r eyes " o p e n e d a b r u p t l y a n d t h e y o p e n e d t o reveal s o m e -

c o m e from the ambiguity of an imperceptible m e t a m o r p h o s i s

t h i n g t e r r i b l e w h i c h I will n o t t a l k a b o u t , t h e m o s t t e r r i b l e

s u c h t h a t h a v i n g n o t h i n g t o say a n d n o m e a n s t o s a y i t itself

l o o k a living b e i n g c a n receive [ b r u s q u e m e n t elles s ' o u v r i r e n t ,

begins a discourse. This is w h a t " h a p p e n s " in Blanchot be-

e t elles s ' o u v r i r e n t s u r q u e l q u e c h o s e d e t e r r i b l e d o n t j e n e

c a u s e all his t e x t s a r e Sirenic, i n t h e sense h e h i m s e l f d e s c r i b e s

parlerai pas, sur le regard le plus terrible q u ' u n être vivant

i n his e s s a y o n the f a m o u s e p i s o d e f r o m H o m e r . S o a l l u r i n g ,

puisse r e c e v o i r ] . "

Blanchot's texts remain a m b i g u o u s , void of content, hesitant,

H e l l t o f i n d his b e l o v e d a n d h e h a s l o o k e d a t h e r face-to-face.

a n d o f a n u n c e r t a i n s t a t u s (are t h e y p o e t i c ? p h i l o s o p h i c ? criti-

J.'s eyes l o o k a t t h e n a r r a t o r f r o m d e a t h . Eyes t h a t w o u l d l o o k

cal?). O n e can a p p r o a c h t h e m , to be sure, in the m a n n e r of

a t u s f r o m d e a t h a l l o w u s t o c o m e face-to-face w i t h d e a t h i n

U l y s s e s , b y s t r a p p i n g oneself t o t h e s t u r d y m a s t o f H e g e l ,

p e r s o n . It is of c o u r s e a c o m m o n p l a c e t h a t o n e c l o s e t h e eyes

Heidegger, Kojéve, or whomever. O n e can also spare others

o f t h e d e c e a s e d s o t h a t t h e y d o n o t cruelly c o n t i n u e t o g a z e , t o

a n y p e r c e p t i o n o f h i m a t all b y n o t t e a c h i n g h i m ( b e c a u s e h e i s

s e a r c h o u t for s o m e t h i n g t o see; for this d e a d g a z e — p u r e l y

" u n t e a c h a b l e " ) . He is a "difficult" writer. Q u i t e . For, w h a t

i n d i f f e r e n t , b l a n k , a n d s u p e r f l u o u s — i s a gaze nevertheless. In

B l a n c h o t reveals in his t e x t s is t h e very a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of litera-

t h e face o f t h e d e a d a n d i n t h e w o r k o f a r t ( w h i c h h a s its o w n

5 9

Like O r p h e u s , the n a r r a t o r has g o n e into

t u r e as such, a r t a n d w r i t i n g as such, t h o u g h t as such. W h o

b l a n k n e s s ) o n e i s faced w i t h t h e e t e r n a l , t h e e n d l e s s — n o t d e a t h

c a n resist this allure? W h o w o u l d n o t , like O r p h e u s i n H e l l ,

as absent, but death as the absence of another shore a n d with-

w a n t to enter the space of literature and wrest from it the

o u t a n y p l a c e i n life. T o c l o s e t h e eyelids o f t h e d e a d i s t o

f o r m a n d f i g u r e o f t h a t w h i c h h a s s o affected o n e ? I t i s n o t

p r e t e n d t h a t t h e d e a d sleep i n p e a c e . B u t h u m a n eyes d o n o t

l i t e r a t u r e , p h i l o s o p h y , o r literary criticism t h a t B l a n c h o t w r i t e s ,

sleep. E v e n i n sleep t h e y p a t h e t i c a l l y s e a r c h b e h i n d c l o s e d e y e -

b u t their infinite attractiveness.

b u t its image;

lids for s o m e t h i n g t o see. H u m a n eyes a n d t h e i r g a z e d o n o t

n o t a t e x t , b u t a récit; n o t t h o u g h t , b u t its s i m u l a c r u m . The

m e r e l y , a s S a r t r e t e a c h e s , resist m y a p p r o p r i a t i o n . T h e y resist

Blanchotian

text

is

the

Not

shimmering

literature,

of

a n y p r o p e r r e l a t i o n t o life a t all. T h e y a r e a l r e a d y little c o r p s e s .

literature. It is p o e t r y as p u r e a p p e a r a n c e , p u r e s e e m i n g , p u r e

and

pure

appearance

T h e n a r r a t o r c o u l d revive J., b u t h e i s p o w e r l e s s t o r e s u s c i t a t e

ambiguity. Neither literature nor t h o u g h t as it is n o w t h o u g h t

her eyes, w h i c h are always already " b e y o n d " — f r o m b e y o n d

of, b u t as it is to c o m e , v o i d of p r e s e n c e in a t i m e a venir. A n d

a n d v a i n l y s e a r c h i n g for a b e y o n d .

s o i t i s futile a n d fatal t o a t t e m p t a n e x p l i c a t i o n o f B l a n c h o t —

I n t h e a r r e s t e d , stupefied g a z e o f t h e d e a d o n e sees t h e

image of a g a z e . O n e secs an i m a g i n a r y seeing. O n e secs a

thai m o m e n t ol absolute uncertainty, the Outside w a s there,

g a z e t h a t is t h e g a z e of no o n e . ( A n d t h a t is w h y , in t h e m y t h ,

death w a s there

E u r i d i c e v a n i s h e s w h e n O r p h e u s l o o k s a t her, o r a t h e r g a z e —

n a r r a t o r w a s greeted by the gaze he w a s d r a w n to a n d s o u g h t

for h e r s is t h e g a z e of no o n e , t h e g a z e of t h e d e a d . ) T h e r e is a

for. I t w a s indifferent t o h i m , t o his p r e s e n c e , a n d i t c o n d e m n e d

d o u b l e o p e n i n g o f J.'s eyes (they " o p e n e d a b r u p t l y a n d t h e y

h i m to d e a t h b e c a u s e it l o o k e d at h i m as if he was already no

o p e n e d t o r e v e a l [ b r u s q u e m e n t elles s ' o u v r i r e n t , e t elles

longer there. Yes, t h e n a r r a t o r of L'arrêt de mort d o e s find J.,

s'ouvrirent sur]"), because there must be a dead, blank, anony-

the J. he sought, in Hell. But he only meets her w h o disregards

m o u s g a z e t h a t h o l l o w s itself o u t a n d c r e a t e s a s p a c e for see-

h i m . H e m e e t s h e r a s she is: d e a d a n d w i t h o u t h i m , o u t s i d e

i n g . I t w a s t h a t b l a n k g a z e t h a t t h e n a r r a t o r c o n f r o n t e d i n J.'s

h i m utterly.

open, impotent, and w i t h o u t intimacy. T h e

e y e s . It w a s a g a z e t h a t r e s e m b l e d J.'s b u t t h a t was not hers,

T h e n a r r a t o r is n o t a w a r e of this strangeness at the time,

was not anyone's. T h e eyes t h a t l o o k e d like J.'s, for a m o -

for t h e e v e n t i s t o o p r e c i s e a n d t o o i m p e r s o n a l e v e n t o b e

ment, belonged to no one. At that m o m e n t , J. became her

a c k n o w l e d g e d . H e s a y s , "[I]f I h a d s h u d d e r e d a t t h a t i n s t a n t ,

o w n double, her o w n image, and it w a s the image of J. that

a n d i f I h a d b e e n a f r a i d , e v e r y t h i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n lost, b u t

stared at the n a r r a t o r with an imaginary stare. It w a s the im-

my tenderness w a s so great t h a t I didn't even think a b o u t the

a g e o f J., y e s , b u t J . herself w a s a b r u p t l y eyeless. T h e eyes t h a t

strangeness of w h a t w a s happening, which certainly seemed

s t a r e d w e r e n o t h e r s a n d i t w a s t h o s e a n o n y m o u s eyes t h a t

t o m e a l t o g e t h e r n a t u r a l b e c a u s e o f t h a t infinite m o v e m e n t

s t a r e d a t t h e n a r r a t o r a s h e l o o k e d i n t o a face w i t h n o eyes: a

w h i c h d r e w me t o w a r d h e r [si à cet i n s t a n t j ' a v a i s frémi, et si

face h e l o v e d a n d h a d b r o u g h t b a c k f r o m H e l l .

j ' a v a i s é p r o u v é d e l a peur, t o u t e û t été p e r d u , m a i s m a t e n d r e s s e

T h e i m a g e o f a g a z e p r e c e d e d J.'s g l a n c e a t t h e n a r r a t o r a n d J.'s i m a g e p r e c e d e d h e r r e t u r n t o life. I t w a s a n i m a g e terrible a n d u n n a m a b l e , or an "absent absence," as Foucault puts it.

60

In other w o r d s , a resemblance preceded the actual

a n d t h e n d i s a p p e a r e d i n t o H e l l a s J . r e t u r n e d t o life. B u t t h e living J . (the o t h e r s u b j e c t , t o use t h e c r u d e l a n g u a g e o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s ) i s n o t t h e w o m a n t h e n a r r a t o r s o u g h t , for J . , r e t u r n e d t o life, r e t u r n e d a t t h e s a m e t i m e t o m o r t a l i t y a n d , i n fact, a few d a y s later, t h e n a r r a t o r h e l p s h e r t o d i e .

61

That

était si g r a n d e que je n'eus m ê m e pas une pensée p o u r le caractère singulier de ce qui se passait, qui me p a r u t c e r t a i n e m e n t t o u t à fait n a t u r e l , à c a u s e de ce m o u v e m e n t infini q u i me portait à sa r e n c o n t r e ] . "

6 3

T h e "infinite m o v e m e n t " h e s p e a k s

of, t h e H e l l i n t o w h i c h J. h a d s l i p p e d , is Ventretemps: a c r o s s i n g t h a t is infinite, a r r e s t e d , like a (step n o t ) b e y o n d or le pas au-delà (as B l a n c h o t so n e a t l y says in t h e title of a n o t h e r of his w o r k s t h a t should p e r h a p s be r e a d as a clandestine c o m p a n i o n to

L'arrêt de mort).

w h i c h p r e c e d e d J . — h e r i m a g e a n d its i m a g i n a r y g a z e — w a s

I t i s i m p o r t a n t for u s t o c o n s i d e r t h e p r e c i s i o n o f t h e e v e n t

s i m u l t a n e o u s l y h e r p a s t (herself d e a d , o r " a l r e a d y n o m o r e

for these precise m o m e n t s m a k e u p t h e " s u b s t a n c e " o f

t h a n a s t a t u e [déjà p l u s q u ' u n e s t a t u e ] , " t h e n a r r a t o r s a y s )

62

Blanchot's writings. These m o m e n t s , or m o v e m e n t s , or spaces

a n d h e r f u t u r e ( a g a i n , herself d e a d a few d a y s l a t e r ) . T h a t

are precise a n d a n a m o r p h i c insofar as they c a n n o t be interro-

which preceded J.—the terrible resemblance—was w i t h o u t a

gated, or even properly experienced or n a r r a t e d . T h e O u t s i d e

present, w i t h o u t being, a n d bore no relation to the present. In

o f w h i c h w e s p e a k i n t h e scene(s) o f J.'s d e a t h ( s ) i s n o t o u t s i d e

of an i n t e r i o r i t y (the narrator's or the reader's). II we a n d nu

Cannol relaie tO them. And if I can " i m a g i n e (he h a n d t h a t

m e r o u s o t h e r c o m m e n t a t o r s s o frequently i n v o k e t o p o g r a p h y ,

w r i t e s them," ' I will o n l y find myself face-to-face w i t h a g a z e

it is o n l y i m m e d i a t e l y to c o n t e s t it.

6

1

L'entretemps m u s t be

that does not regard me, that dispenses with me. For t h a t is

t h o u g h t o f p r o x i m a l l y , i n t h e sense w e h a v e a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d .

the " p r i c e " of transgression: / am neglected. Reading then

T h a t w h i c h h a p p e n s t o t h e n a r r a t o r d o e s n o t , a s w e see, in-

becomes

s p i r e m e m o r a b l e i m a g e s o r d a z z l i n g p r o s e . T h e t o n e o f L'arrêt

itself for a n d s i m u l a t e s — i n s i s t s o n t h e a b s e n c e o f — t h e p r e s e n t .

de mort is, if a n y t h i n g , d i s t a n t , b u t w i t h t h a t d i s t a n c e t h a t

T o b e sure, i n all a r t a s w e h a v e seen, t h e " m e a n w h i l e " r e p l a c e s

Blanchot has found at the heart of intimacy and passion. W h a t

t h e p r e s e n t , t h e i m a g e s u b s t i t u t e s itself for t h e c o n c e p t . I n

r e m a i n s a t t r a c t i v e t o t h e n a r r a t o r i s r e n d e r e d i n o u t l i n e only,

Blanchot, this e n i g m a is foregrounded. By " t h i n n i n g o u t " im-

une

tâche

sérieuse

because

l'entretemps

substitutes

in profile o n l y (as is le visage in L e v i n a s ) . Barely p e r c e p t i b l e

ages, scenes, characters, actions, a n d language the Bianchotian

s c e n e s a n d f i g u r e s a p p e a r (or a p p e a r o n l y o b l i q u e l y , o r appear

t e x t a p p r o a c h e s t h e i m a g i n a r y a s such—where t h e r e a r e n o

to a p p e a r ) t h r o u g h o u t all of B l a n c h o t ' s w o r k s . (Le pas au-

i m a g e s , w h e r e n o t h i n g crystallizes i n t o definite f o r m s o r f i g u r e s ,

delà a l s o c o n t a i n s scenes o f d e a t h , c o n v e r s a t i o n s , a n d " c h a r -

a n d w h e r e the time of reading is also the time of writing a n d

a c t e r s " e v e n m o r e s p a r s e l y d r a w n t h a n t h o s e i n L'arrêt d e

the time of dying. We reach the s h a d o w of the world w h e r e

mort.) W h a t " h a p p e n s " i s a l w a y s " b e t w e e n " (or i n p a r e n t h e -

initiative a n d action are already no longer possible. T h a t is to

ses) w h a t m i g h t b e c a l l e d a c t i o n s o r e v e n t s . W h a t m a t t e r s a n d

say, r e a d i n g c o m e s t o d o u b l e t h e p a t h o s o f d y i n g . I t d o u b l e s

w h a t affects u s a s r e a d e r s , a n d w h a t affects B l a n c h o t ' s n a r r a -

the inability to enter into the present and the impossibility of

t o r s i n all his récits, a r e e v e n t s t h a t t a k e p l a c e o u t s i d e a n y

finding any p r o p e r place in the w o r l d . It is the time of radical

c h a r a c t e r ' s i n i t i a t i v e or i n t e n t i o n . T h e n a r r a t o r of L'arrêt de

incompletion and of worklessness.

mort i s a b l e t o w r i t e a n d t o t r y t o p u t a n e n d t o t h e s e e v e n t s

If, as we say, o u r relation w i t h t h e d e a d is a p a r o d y of inter-

b e c a u s e , h e s a y s , t h e y c o n c e r n o n l y h i m . Yet t h a t w h i c h i s

subjectivity, it is b e c a u s e it is an i m a g i n a r y r e l a t i o n : a r e l a t i o n

o n l y h i s , t h a t w h i c h b e l o n g s w i t h i n his o w n i n t i m a c y , i s o p e n

w i t h n o o n e . But i t i s a r e l a t i o n n o n e t h e l e s s , a n d o n e t h a t d o e s

t o s t r a n g e r s , t o r e a d e r s . Few, i f any, w o r k s i n t h i s c e n t u r y (or

not terminate our relations with the one w h o the dead person

e v e r p e r h a p s ) c a u s e t h e r e a d e r t o feel m o r e a c u t e l y t h a t h e o r

w a s . It is a relation w i t h o u t relation, b u t it " p r e s e r v e s " a n d

s h e i s intruding o n s o m e o n e else's p r i v a c y t h a n d o t h e w o r k s

e x h i b i t s t h a t v a c a n t t i m e en deçà du temps t h a t a l w a y s p r e -

of B l a n c h o t . T h i s is i n d e e d p a r t of t h e i r " t h r i l l . " It is as if o n e

c e d e s t h e living t i m e o f h u m a n i n t e r subjectivity. I t i s p a r o d i e

h a d entered a prohibited space or had stepped uninvited into

in the sense t h a t it is a relation with the other t h a t t o u c h e s h i m

s o m e o n e else's a p a r t m e n t .

o u t s i d e his subjectivity i n t h e t i m e o f d y i n g t h a t t h e o t h e r will

T h e c u r i o u s effect h e r e is o n e of a t r a n s g r e s s i o n of i n t i -

never c o m e to t h e e n d of. It is n o t a t i m e or a r e l a t i o n t h a t I am

macy: witnessing that which doesn't concern one. These

ever c o n s c i o u s of in my dealings w i t h o t h e r s . It is t h u s a relation

"things" that happened to someone in 1938 are attractive pre-

o v e r w h i c h I can exercise no m a s t e r y w h a t s o e v e r .

cisely i n s o f a r a s t h e y c o n c e r n o n l y t h a t s o m e o n e . I t i s like t h e

T h e infinite m o v e m e n t t o w a r d , o r r e n d e z v o u s w i t h , Levi-

thrill o f g o s s i p . T h e s e t h i n g s a t t r a c t m e p r e c i s e l y i n s o f a r a s I

n a s ' s Autrui i s l i k e w i s e e t e r n a l l y p a r a l y z e d a n d w i t h o u t a n

o u t c o m e , as is o u r r e l a t i o n with t h e artwork. It is, if y o u like

sell, b e c o m e engulfed in o r d e r a n d t a k e on the a p p e a r a n c e of

( a n d a s L é v i n a s w o u l d prefer), a m o v e m e n t t o w a r d a n O u t -

a c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t |se t r a h i r et s ' e n g l o u t i r d a n s l ' o r d r e p o u r se

side t h a t is only ever rebegun in any conscious u n d e r t a k i n g

m o n t r e r produit culturel |" a n d poetry, of course, c a n be " a p -

w i t h others in t h e w o r l d . It is a time or a m o v e m e n t " w i t h o u t

plauded a n d rewarded, sold, bought [applaudi et primé, vendu,

m e , " a n d its i n t i m a c y i s precisely its d i s r e g a r d o f m e . T h e e n -

acheté]," and so o n .

c o u n t e r w i t h Autrui i s e m p t i e d b o t h o f myself a n d t h e o t h e r ,

surfaces at a precise instant b e t w e e n k n o w l e d g e a n d culture,

as if I w e r e o b l i g e d , as t h e " p r i c e " of this i n t i m a c y , to f o r g e t

b e t w e e n seeing a n d s a y i n g .

b o t h myself a n d t h e o t h e r . W e h a v e a l r e a d y t a k e n u p t h i s issue

the t w o "pincers" are never quite closed—"le m o m e n t entre

i n o u r c h a p t e r o n L é v i n a s . I n its i n t i m a c y a n d a n o n y m i t y , a s

l e v o i r e t l e d i r e o ù les m â c h o i r e s r e s t e n t , e n t r ' o u v e r t e s . "

B l a n c h o t so m a t c h l e s s l y e x p r e s s e s it t h r o u g h o u t L'arrêt de

T h e a r t w o r k i s t h e r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e i r ever c o m p l e t e l y c l o s i n g .

mort, w e m u s t b e a t t e n t i v e t o t h a t w h i c h p r e c e d e s all living

L i k e w i s e , w e t h i n k , t h e r e l a t i o n w i t h Autrui t h a t L e v i n a s calls

relations a n d to that which, as it is a n o n y m o u s , is imaginary.

ethics is an o b s c u r e resistance to the closing of ontic categories.

T h i s justifies, w e t h i n k , o u r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e L e v i n a s i a n éthique as

imaginary.

6 9

This is because, Levinas says, poetry 70

For t h a t very reason, he argues, 7 1

T h e p o i n t w e a r e g e t t i n g t o i n this c h a p t e r i s this p o i n t o f r e s i s t a n c e , this i n t e r m i n a b l e p a r a l y s i s t h a t m a k e s u p t h e " s u b -

I m m e m o r i a l l y p a r a l y z e d , i n t e r r u p t e d , h e s i t a n t , c o y (all

s t a n c e " o f B l a n c h o t ' s œuvre a n d is, w e m a y say, t h e I m a g e o f

t h e s e t e r m s will h a v e to do for n o w ) this en deçà, or le dire, or

an Outside, and an O t h e r to the categories of t h o u g h t or of

I m a g e , o r I m a g i n a r y i s just a s i m m e m o r i a l l y f o r g o t t e n , i g n o r e d ,

t h e S t a t e . T h e a r t w o r k , t h e B l a n c h o t i a n récit, T i a n a n m e n , a n d

overlooked, and dispensed with as inconsequential. In one of

L e v i n a s i a n responsabilité a r e d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s a n d d i s j u n c t i o n s .

his essays o n B l a n c h o t , " T h e S e r v a n t a n d H e r M a s t e r , " L é v i n a s

A g a m b e n , a s w e shall see, t h o r o u g h l y e x p l o i t s t h i s i n t e r m i -

s p e a k s o f this " f o r g e t t i n g " a s t h a t w h i c h r e s t o r e s d i a c h r o n y

n a b l e failure (or, a s h e will p u t it, t h i s " p o w e r t o n o t n o t - b e

to time by turning " a w a y from the past instant [détourne de

[poter n o n non-essere]")

72

i n his w r i t i n g s o n t h e " c o m i n g c o m -

But, importantly, d i a c h r o n y is n o t a d u r a -

munity." W h a t we have tried to bring o u t of the s h a d o w s in

t i o n . I t h a s n e i t h e r " p r e t e n t i o n n o r r e t e n t i o n , " a s L é v i n a s says,

o u r c h a p t e r o n B l a n c h o t i s t h e sense t h a t t h e t i m e o f c o n t i n u -

l'instant p a s s é ] . "

6 5

good student that he is of Husserl. in

Autrement

qu'être

ou

au-delà

66

de

(When, here and t h e r e —

ity a n d i n t e r s u b j e c t i v i t y (as we p e r s i s t in c a l l i n g it) is r a d i c a l l y

l'essence

u n d e r m i n e d a n d hollowed o u t by a "forgetting," or a p r o -

for

instance—

L é v i n a s s p e a k s o f diachronie, h e m e a n s t h e " m e a n w h i l e " t h a t

found

"past"

intolérable à la pensée.

w e h a v e b e e n d i s c u s s i n g i n this c h a p t e r . ) H o w e v e r , t h a t w h i c h turns a w a y from the past also "abides in w o r d s [demeure en une p a r o l e ] "

6 7

a n d w h e n they become "attentive to their con-

The

Image

and

Ipseity

of Art

dition, w o r d s c o m e to a stop a n d t u r n into pillars of salt

W e h a v e seen t h a t t h e t r a j e c t o r y o f B l a n c h o t i a n

[ p e n c h é s s u r l e u r c o n d i t i o n , les m o t s s ' a r r ê t e n t e n s t a t u e s d e

a n d L e v i n a s i a n a e s t h e t i c s is t o w a r d a n t e r i o r i t y as such. N o t a

sel]."

6 8

P o e t r y , i n c l u d i n g t h e p o e t r y o f B l a n c h o t , c a n " b e t r a y it-

p r i m o r d i a l s t a t e - o f - t h i n g s , n o r a fluid a n d i n c o h e r e n t m a s s o f data awaiting organized impression, but instead the subtlety

of i m a g i n a r y m a t t e r (like le dire that overflows every le dit)

N o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n its mimetic r a p p o r t w i t h w h a t i t i s n o t —

w h o s e d e s t i n y is n e i t h e r subjective n o r o b j e c t i v e . In t h e d i s e n -

the real. Art i s reality's s h a d o w — t h a t w h i c h v a n i s h e s w h e n

gaged, more-than-passive and otherwise-than-worldly w o r k

a n y light is s h e d on it.

o f a r t (as i n t h e c a d a v e r ) , this a n t e r i o r i t y i s " f r o z e n " a n d " p r e -

T h e a r t w o r k is not an object. It is p u r e r a p p o r t , p u r e c o m -

s e r v e d " a s a n i c o n . Yet i t r e m a i n s u n p e r c e i v e d a n d silent, like

m u n i c a t i o n , p u r e p a s s i o n . A s B l a n c h o t s o o b l i g i n g l y p u t s it:

t h e voix narrative, b e c a u s e it is n o t t h e m a t e r i a l for a p e r c e p -

" I t is as if a secret l a w r e q u i r e d of t h e w o r k t h a t it a l w a y s be

t i o n . T h i s a n t e r i o r i t y en deçà du temps is n o t d e s t i n e d for t h e

concealed in w h a t it shows a n d that it only s h o w w h a t m u s t

light of day, b u t neither is it the day's simple obverse. In

r e m a i n c o n c e a l e d a n d t h a t finally i t o n l y s h o w s w h a t m u s t s t a y h i d d e n b y c o n c e a l i n g i t [ C o m m e s i u n e loi secrète e x i g e a i t

73

B l a n c h o t ' s t e r m s , it is t h e autre nuit.

W h e n Blanchot asks of the w o r k of art, " W h a t has always e l u d e d its l a n g u a g e [ q u ' e s t - c e q u i s'est t o u j o u r s d é r o b é à s o n l a n g a g e ] ? " a n d a n s w e r s , "Itself"; w h e n h e says t h a t a r t "is a l w a y s a n t e r i o r t o w h a t i t s p e a k s o f a n d t o itself [est t o u j o u r s p l u s a n t é r i e u r q u e c e d o n t i l p a r l e e t p l u s a n t é r i e u r q u e luimême],"

7 4

he is referring to anteriority insofar as art is t h a t

w h i c h resists its o w n u n v e i l i n g a n d t h u s e l u d e s t h e v i c e - g r i p of s e e i n g a n d s a y i n g . For, t h e voix narrative is t h e t a l e itself, t h e w o r k o f a r t itself, p r i o r t o its n a r r a t i v e " c o n t e n t s . " T h i s i s n o t so v e r y s t r a n g e . All of t h e r e a l i t y of a r t (like all of t h e r e a l i t y o f t h e self, a s w e h a v e a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d )

75

is b o r r o w e d

f r o m o u t s i d e it: f r o m m a t e r i a l s , clay, m a r b l e , p i g m e n t , a n d life itself, w h i c h s o m e t i m e s a p p e a r s t o t h e a r t i s t t o b e a l r e a d y aesthetically attractive. Art is mimesis, according to one of t h e W e s t ' s o l d e s t d e f i n i t i o n s . A r t , q u i t e simply, h a s n o self, n o ipse, to be r e v e a l e d . T h a t is t h e secret of its a n t e r i o r i t y , its " o t h e r n i g h t . " Its itselfness is always to come. T h i s is t h e sec r e t o f its i n e x h a u s t i b l e r e s o u r c e s . M i m e s i s c a n n o t b e r e v e a l e d . If t h e w o r k of a r t e l u d e s itself, a n d n e v e r s p e a k s itself in its

d'elle q u ' e l l e soit t o u j o u r s c a c h é e en ce qu'elle m o n t r e , et q u ' e l l e n e m o n t r e aussi q u e c e qui d o i t r e s t e r c a c h é e t n e l e m o n t r e , enfin, q u ' e n l e d i s s i m u l a n t ] . "

7 6

T h e w o r k o f a r t " r e v e a l s " its

o w n h i d d e n n e s s , i t " s h o w s " its o w n a b s e n c e f r o m all s h o w i n g , i t " s a y s " its o w n silence, a n d s o f o r t h . Before t h e w o r k o f a r t c o m m u n i c a t e s a n y t h i n g (the g o d s , e.g.) i t c o m m u n i c a t e s c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I t i s o n l y after t h a t t o w h i c h t h e w o r k o f a r t refers i s f o r g o t t e n (i.e., t h e g o d s w h o h a v e fled a n d w h o s e flight t o o h a s b e e n f o r g o t t e n ) t h a t t h i s e n i g m a b e g i n s t o m a k e itself felt, b e g i n s t o d r a w n e a r t o its " o r i g i n a l e x p e r i e n c e . " This vanishing point is w h a t Blanchot is getting at w h e n he a s k s : " W h a t will b e c o m e n o w o f a r t , n o w t h a t t h e G o d s a n d even their a b s e n c e are g o n e , a n d n o w t h a t m e n ' s presence offers n o s u p p o r t [ N e p o u v a n t plus p r e n d r e a p p u i sur les d i e u x , n i m ê m e sur l'absence des d i e u x ; n e p o u v a n t s ' a p p u y e r sur l ' h o m m e présent qui ne lui a p p a r t i e n t plus {...} q u e va devenir l ' œ u v r e ?] "

7 7

A fascinating question. It is at this p o i n t t h a t the w o r k of art t r u l y finds its c o n d i t i o n , its " e l e m e n t a l d e p t h s . " It b e c o m e s a p u r e i m a g e o f itself, a n d i t d i s a p p e a r s i n t o itself, i n t o its t i m e .

own l a n g u a g e , it is b e c a u s e a r t is precisely selfless. It is w i t h -

Inexhaustibly communicating with w h a t it is not, the w o r k

o u t a n y t h i n g t h a t w o u l d b e p r o p e r t o it. P r i o r t o its " c o n -

of art resembles, again, nothing so m u c h as a cadaver w h o s e

t e n t s , " t h e w o r k of a r t is a p u r e i m a g e of itself, an i m a g e of

very materiality is the erasure of the b o r d e r b e t w e e n presence

n o t h i n g . B y t h e m o s t e l e m e n t a r y logic w e m u s t c o n c l u d e w i t h

a n d a b s e n c e , life a n d d e a t h , d i s a p p e a r a n c e a n d r e t u r n , i m a g e

B l a n c h o t a n d L e v i n a s t h a t a r t itself— m i m e s i s — i s n o t h i n g .

a n d reality (for t h e c a d a v e r ' s e n t i r e reality i s t h a t i t i s a n i m a g e

of itself). Like the c o r p s e , the w o r k ol art is i n c a p a b l e of its

in s o m e sense the sovereign a n d last p o w e r of t h i n g s .

" n o w , " i n c a p a b l e o f b e i n g itself, i n c a p a b l e o f r e a c h i n g o r a t -

This m o v e m e n t implies infinite d e g r e e s . T h u s p s y c h o -

t a i n i n g its b e i n g , w h i c h a l w a y s slips b e y o n d i t w h e r e i t c a n n o t

a n a l y s i s says t h a t t h e i m a g e , far f r o m l e a d i n g u s o u t -

s t e p . L i k e t h e c o r p s e , t h e w o r k o f a r t i s t h e very i m a g e o f a

side o f t h i n g s a n d m a k i n g u s live i n t h e m o d e o f g r a t u -

s t r a n g e i n c a p a c i t y s i m p l y t o be. Like t h e d e a r d e p a r t e d , t h e

i t o u s fantasy, s e e m s t o s u r r e n d e r u s p r o f o u n d l y t o o u r -

w o r k o f a r t c a n n o t d i s a p p e a r i n t o its own d i s a p p e a r a n c e , its

selves. T h e i m a g e i s i n t i m a t e b e c a u s e i t m a k e s o u r in-

own e n d . T h i s i m p o t e n c e , h o w e v e r , i s its " o w n m o s t " e x p e r i -

t i m a c y a n e x t e r i o r p o w e r t h a t w e passively s u b m i t t o :

e n c e of "itself." T h a t is, it c a n o n l y e x p e r i e n c e "itself" in its

outside of us, in the b a c k w a r d m o t i o n of the w o r l d

o t h e r , as o t h e r . It c a n o n l y e x p e r i e n c e itself as o t h e r t h a n itself;

t h a t t h e i m a g e p r o v o k e s , t h e d e p t h o f o u r p a s s i o n trails

it is o n l y itself as o t h e r t h a n itself. It c a n o n l y c o m m u n i c a t e , in

along, astray a n d brilliant.

s h o r t . A r t is no s o o n e r itself t h a n it is a l r e a d y petrified i n t o a s t a t u e , a n i c o n , a p u p p e t , a toy. " S h e w h o w a s o n c e a b s o l u t e l y

[Vivre u n é v é n e m e n t e n i m a g e , c e n ' e s t p a s s e d é g a g e r

alive w a s n o w n o m o r e t h a n a s t a t u e [Elle n ' é t a i t déjà p l u s

d e cet é v é n e m e n t , s'en désintéresser, c o m m e l e v o u -

q u ' u n e s t a t u e , elle a b s o l u m e n t v i v a n t e ] , " B l a n c h o t ' s n a r r a t o r

d r a i e n t l e v e r s i o n e s t h é t i q u e d e l ' i m a g e e t l'idéal serein

says o f J . a t h e r d e a t h . comes

other

than

7 8

N o s o o n e r d o e s she die t h a n s h e b e -

herself,

other

d e l ' a r t c l a s s i q u e , m a i s c e n ' e s t n o n p l u s s'y e n g a g e r

than anyone—totally a n o n y -

p a r u n e d é c i s i o n l i b r e : c'est s'y laisser p r e n d r e , p a s s e r

m o u s . L i k e t h e c a d a v e r , t h e w o r k of a r t itself Is t h e i m a g e of

d e l a r é g i o n d u réel, o ù n o u s n o u s t e n o n s à d i s t a n c e

a n image. I t i s a n i m a g i n a r y i m a g e , t o b e s u r e , a n d o n e t h a t

des choses p o u r m i e u x en disposer, à cette autre région

n o b o d y recognizes, but it is an image nonetheless a n d one

o ù l a d i s t a n c e n o u s t i e n t , c e t t e d i s t a n c e q u i est a l o r s

t h a t is t h a t is always " o l d e r " t h a n that of which it is the im-

profondeur non

vivante,

indisponible, lointain

age. In this w a y we can u n d e r s t a n d p e r h a p s m o r e clearly

inappréciable devenue c o m m e la puissance souveraine

Blanchot's "other version" of the imaginary:

e t d e r n i è r e des c h o s e s . C e m o u v e m e n t i m p l i q u e d e s d e g r é s infinis. L a p s y c h a n a l y s e dit ainsi q u e l ' i m a g e ,

T o e x p e r i e n c e a n e v e n t a s a n i m a g e i s n o t t o free o n e -

loin d e n o u s laisser h o r s d e c a u s e e t d e n o u s faire v i v r e

self o f t h a t e v e n t , t o d i s s o c i a t e oneself f r o m it, a s a s -

s u r l e m o d e d e l a fantaisie g r a t u i t e , s e m b l e n o u s livrer

s e r t e d b y t h e e s t h e t i c v e r s i o n o f t h e i m a g e a n d t h e se-

p r o f o n d é m e n t à n o u s - m ê m e s , i n t i m e est l ' i m a g e , p a r c e

r e n e ideal o f classical a r t , b u t n e i t h e r i s i t t o e n g a g e

q u ' e l l e fait d e n o t r e i n t i m i t é u n e p u i s s a n c e e x t é r i e u r e

oneself w i t h it t h r o u g h a free d i m e n s i o n : it is to let

que nous subissons passivement: en dehors de nous,

oneself b e t a k e n b y it, t o g o f r o m t h e r e g i o n o f t h e

d a n s l e recul d u m o n d e q u ' e l l e p r o v o q u e , t r a î n e , é g a r é e

real, w h e r e we hold ourselves at a distance from things

et brillante, la profondeur de nos passions.]

7 9

t h e b e t t e r t o use t h e m , t o t h a t o t h e r r e g i o n w h e r e d i s tance holds us, this distance which is n o w unliving,

" O l d e r " t h a n t h e s e r e n e classical v e r s i o n o f t h e i m a g e t h a t

unavailable depth, an inappreciable remoteness become

guarantees distance, is that which is not to be and that which

is n o t to b e c o m e either. T h e w o r k ol an is the i m a g e of that

In this way, the "experience" Blanchot refers to m u s t be p r i o r

w h i c h is never to be, never to b e c o m e — t h a t w h i c h is ever on

to Kantian experience a n d w o u l d refer to t h e pure position of

t h e h i t h e r side of t i m e

Mona

the subject. To e x p e r i e n c e t h e e v e n t as an i m a g e , t h e n , is n o t

Lisa will be about to smile. E t e r n a l l y d e l a y e d p r i o r to b e i n g /

to e x p e r i e n c e an o b j e c t (since t h e o b j e c t d i s a p p e a r s i n t o it-

(en deca du

temps).

Eternally

b e c o m i n g , she i s t h e d e g r a d e d i m a g e o f t h e e t e r n a l . N o t a t i m e -

self), b u t to e x p e r i e n c e t h e self as t h e p u r e p a s s i v i t y of p o s i -

less s t a t i c f o r m , b u t a fragment of a never to be continued and

t i o n , or, " t h e r e n e s s . " I t i s t h u s p r i o r t o a n y e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e

completed whole. In t h e c o r p s e , in t h e w o r k of a r t , we see

w o r l d , a n d it i m m e d i a t e l y closes in on itself w i t h o u t a t r a c e . It

( w i t h o u t p e r c e i v i n g ) t h a t w h i c h i m a g e s itself. I t i s n o t a n o t h e r

closes b e c a u s e t h e s u b j e c t c a n " f e e l " o n l y its o w n i n t r i n s i c a l l y

image, as we learn from Blanchot, b u t a n o t h e r version of the

e m p t y receptivity. I t is, a s i t w e r e , t h e s h a d o w o f t h e r e c e p t i v -

s a m e i m a g e . It is a r e t u r n of t h e i m a g e to itself, p r i o r to its

ity t h a t , u n i t i n g w i t h s p o n t a n e i t y , f o r g e s t h e p r o p e r l y K a n t i a n

b e i n g an i m a g e of . . . T h e " o t h e r " v e r s i o n of t h e i m a g i n a r y is

experience. In the language of Levinas, it is an e x t r e m e passiv-

its e t e r n a l r e t u r n t o itself, t o t h e s a m e i m a g e . N o s o o n e r i s t h e

ity t h a t c a n n o t s i m p l y b e o p p o s e d t o activity, b e c a u s e i t i s t h e

a r t w o r k finished t h a n i t i s a r r e s t e d , o t h e r t h a n itself, or, t o say

p a s s i v i t y w h o s e o n l y " q u a l i t y " i s infinite r e c e p t i v i t y o r m a l -

t h e s a m e t h i n g , t h e " s a m e " a s itself i n its very alterity. I n t h i s

leability. It is t h e p a s s i v i t y of absolute instability. T h a t is to

arrested time there is no " n o w " in which the a r t w o r k can

say, t h i s e x p e r i e n c e closes i n o n itself a n d leaves n o t r a c e b e -

b e c o m e . It is the repetition of the real, a n d repetition is with-

c a u s e i t i s n e v e r e v e n o p e n e d . I n a b s o l u t e passivity, i n its p u r e

out a present.

p o s i t i o n p r i o r t o a n y o b - o r s u b - j e c t i o n , t h e " s u b j e c t " (or shall

E v e r y s t a t u e , every c a d a v e r , every p u p p e t , toy, o r a r t i f a c t — i n d e e d , e v e r y t h i n g a n d every p e r s o n w h o falls, i f o n l y for a m o m e n t , outside utility—returns to an inconceivable image

w e say, t h e " c o m m u n i c a t a n t " ? ) i s w h a t i t i s n o t , a n d i s n o t w h a t i t is. T h e r e is, q u i t e simply, n o c o n t a i n i n g t h e e s s e n t i a l ambiguity, or the "essential s o l i t u d e "

8 0

of communicativity.

void of either subject or object. This is the "last p o w e r of

T h e s p a c e o f l i t e r a t u r e — o r , a s w e c a n n o w say, t h e s p a c e

things." They invert the " m o t i o n of the w o r l d " a n d " r e t u r n

of absolute passivity or communicativity—is the thick, crepus-

us to ourselves," but to ourselves insofar as there is no one to

cular, a n d p a r o x y s m a t i c materiality o f t h o u g h t t h a t t h i c k e n s i n t o

r e t u r n t o , n o society o f i d e n t i t i e s i n w h i c h w e c a n r e c o g n i z e

a " t h i n g " (the " t h i n g " w e c a n say, t h a t t h e n a r r a t o r o f L'arrêt

ourselves. In this " o t h e r " imaginary, subject a n d object disap-

de mort "lives w i t h " ) .

pear as such, as ob-posed and distanced. W h a t remains is pure

hyphen, the erosion of mastery, the erosion of that distance

-jection (or t h r o w n n e s s ) , like N i e t z s c h e ' s (or H e i d e g g e r ' s ) d i c e .

w h i c h a l l o w s u s t o h o l d t h e w o r l d a t a distance. F o r B l a n c h o t ,

A r t (the t a l e , t h e voix narrative) is t h e " f o r g e t t i n g " of s u b -

as for D e r r i d a of " b e f o r e the letter," t h e n a m e of this m o v e m e n t

ject a n d o b j e c t a n d i s i n fact t h e i r r a d i c a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , fu-

is writing: the paradoxical "strength" of an inexhaustible im-

sion, or desegregation. Experiencing the event as an image is

p o t e n c e . O f t h i s s p a c e w e c a n o n l y say t h a t i t i s . . . , t h e r e i s .

an experience in which the object is disavowed as such, as

. . , il y a. If w r i t i n g o b s c u r e s t h a t of w h i c h it s p e a k s it is

object o p p o s e d to us in a Vorstellung ( a " p l a c i n g b e f o r e " ) , a n d

b e c a u s e w r i t i n g — w h o s e "original e x p e r i e n c e " a r t a p p r o a c h e s —

t h u s it " r e t u r n s " t h e subject to itself p r i o r to its o p - p o s i t i o n i n g .

is the obscurity, or the forgetting, anterior to any memory.

8 1

It is t h e e r a s u r e of t h e s u b j e c t - o b j e c t

T o u s , art r e m a i n s " c o n s t a n t l y invisible [ c o n s t a m m e n t invisible],"

S2

h i d d e n , en deck, a n d an autre unit. But we a r e d r a w n

e r a s e s "itself," fOl il is w i t h o u t a n y self. N o t s i m p l y w i t h d r a w n from all p r e s e n c e , this t i m e of w r i t i n g is, in t h e l a n -

to it nonetheless. W h e n the object is doubled and neutralized

guage

of

Agamben,

an

imaginary youth

that

never-has-been

in the image, w h e n the image w i t h d r a w s the object from the

a n d t h a t r e - m o v e s itself e a c h t i m e . I t i s t h a t w h o s e "self" i s its

w o r l d , a n d w h e n t h e o b j e c t d i s a p p e a r s i n t o its o w n i m a g e —

re-moval. To sum it up, then, writing—or art, which can double

t h e n i t e x e r c i s e s its f a s c i n a t i o n , its " p o w e r l e s s p o w e r . " W r i t -

u p a n d p r e s e r v e e v e r y t h i n g t h a t p r e s e n t s itself t o u s — i s for-

ing is the c o m i n g of an i m p o t e n c e t h a t neutralizes subjectivity

g e t t i n g . B u t it is n o t a f o r g e t t i n g of a n y thing. It is a f o r g e t t i n g

b y n e u t r a l i z i n g t h e o b j e c t . " I , " a s B l a n c h o t says, b e c o m e " h e "

t h a t p r e c e d e s eidetic e v i d e n c e / a f o r g e t t i n g i m m e m o r i a l l y for-

[il, t h e N e u t e r ] . I n this d o u b l e d s p a c e , t h i s s h a d o w o f t h e r e a l ,

gotten/not even absent/always already forgotten/a perpetual

I c e a s e t o b e sub-ject a n d b e c o m e " h e " w h o i s " h i s " r a p p o r t

l a c k of v i s i o n t h a t p r e c e d e s all seeing a n d s a y i n g / . . .

w i t h t h a t w h i c h h o l d s " h i m " i n its spell. For, i n t h e s p a c e o f literature, I am t h a t " h e " to w h o m I eternally r e t u r n in this

B l a n c h o t i a n a e s t h e t i c s l e a d s u s t o , a n d i s c o n s t a n t l y in-

timeless time of repetition a n d incompletion. I am " h e " in

v a d e d by, a n a n t e r i o r i t y i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h p r e s e n c e , a " h i t h e r

w h o m I d o n o t r e c o g n i z e myself. Yet, I a m n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n

s i d e " t h a t i s a n t e r i o r t o objectivity. I t i s t h e " l a s t p o w e r o f

" h i s " return, " h i s " immemorial and eternal return. A n d " h e "

t h i n g s " t o exercise a silent a n d f o r g o t t e n f a s c i n a t i o n t h a t o p e n s

is imaginary—pure passion, pure rapport, pure communica-

the space of literature, a space evacuated of subject a n d o b -

t i o n . I a m " h e " w h o I a m n o t , for " h e " i s n o t ( a n d n e v e r w i l l

ject, a n d t h u s a s p a c e of r a d i c a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d affectivity.

be) w h o " h e " is.

T h e w o r k o f a r t , like t h e c a d a v e r , before i t r e p r e s e n t s a n y t h i n g

This does not mean that the artwork harbingers my death.

( o r s c e n e , o r d r a m a , o r p e r s o n ) , f i r s t o f all c o m m u n i c a t e s c o m -

It m e a n s t h a t an Httlife, an arrested d e a t h , a p a r a l y z e d f o r c e ,

m u n i c a t i o n itself, o r b e i n g - i n - r e l a t i o n . I n s o f a r a s I a m e v a c u -

h o l l o w s o u t the time of d u r a t i o n a n d r e m a i n s my invisible,

a t e d of subjectivity, I am this b e i n g - i n - r e l a t i o n itself, myself.

hidden involvement with a time of radical incompletion. T h e

O l d e r t h a n a n y s p e c u l a t i o n is this obsession. If B l a n c h o t d e -

a r t w o r k does not harbinger death, it is my involvement with

scribes this as an " o t h e r version" of the imaginary, it is only

d e a t h a l r e a d y . All o f B l a n c h o t ' s w o r k b o r d e r s o n t h i s " o t h e r

b e c a u s e t h e r e i s n o w o r d for it. I t i s n o t d e s i r e , b u t o b s e s -

n i g h t " a n d i s c a r r i e d a l o n g i n its infinite m o v e m e n t . N o t a t

s i o n — a n in-forming t h a t precedes any object or information.

t h e e n d of a w o r l d l y itinerary, b u t at every i n s t a n t , t h e t i m e en

It is a dependency that precedes any psyche that w o u l d be

dega du temps d i s a p p e a r s i n t o itself, e r a s e s

itself, exscribes

d e p e n d e n t . T h e r e is no subject in this " s p a c e " but instead an

itself. T h i s m o v e m e n t c a n n o t b e u n v e i l e d , n o t b e c a u s e i t i s

infinite d e p e n d e n c y , m a l l e a b i l i t y , suggestibility, o r p u r e p a s -

basically w i t h d r a w n and absent, but because it does n o t be-

sivity o f p o s i t i o n t h a t will b e e v e r a n t e r i o r t o a n y p r e s e n t .

l o n g to t h e light at all. It is t h e t i m e of il—always a l r e a d y

P r i o r to subject a n d o b j e c t — a n d this is crucial to L e v i n a s i a n

f a b r i c a t e d , fictioned, w o r k e d over, a n d , as s u c h , it is irrecuper-

e t h i c s — t h e r e is a v i o l e n t affect, i n t r u s i o n , or m o r e - t h a n - i n t i -

able t i m e .

m a c y t h a t i s invisible, u n d e t e c t a b l e , i n e r a d i c a b l e , a n d i r r e d u c -

W r i t i n g , t h e n , i s t h e very m o v e m e n t t h a t f o r g e t s "itself,"

ible. It is an " o t h e r " b e g i n n i n g o u t s i d e a n y origin. It is n e u t e r —

" t h e r e i s . " It is a region in w h i c h the O t h e r is not only o t h e r t h a n I but also other than he or she. Profoundly unpresentable,

FOUR

this region in-forms me prior to any actual c o m m u n i c a t i o n or d i s t a n c e . In every i m a g e t h e r e is a l r e a d y t h a t w h i c h I ( " I " ) am, myself. T h e w r i t e r i s h e w h o s p e a k s w h i l e entirely t r a v e r s e d a n d t r a n s f i x e d b y t h e other t h a t h e ¿5, t h e " h e " w h o i s n e v e r

Agamben and the Political Neuter

a n y o n e — n e v e r a n y o n e o t h e r t h a n I , myself, b u t w i t h o u t m e .

Anonymity

and

Belonging

We learn from Blanchot that to write is to pass f r o m " I " t o " H e , " /'/, t h e N e u t e r . T h e N e u t e r i s t h e s p a c e o f l i t e r a t u r e ( a n i m a g i n a r y s p a c e en deçà du temps), w h i c h is i n t e r m i n a b l e , incessant, a n d p e r p e t u a l l y n o n c o n t e m p o r a r y . T h e neuter is the time of inaction a n d no initiative. It is the s h a d o w of time, of the real, of my h a n d , Blanchot says, as it grips the p e n a n d w r i t e s t h e s e w o r d s . T h e w r i t e r w o u l d like t o e x p r e s s himself w i t h w o r d s , b u t h e f i n d s o n l y t h e i r s h a d o w , t h e i r sheer a p p e a r a n c e , a n d n o t h i n g b e y o n d . T h e writer, l i k i n g i t o r n o t , writes an imaginary language that he cannot put to w o r k and t o w h i c h h e c a n n o t give life. T h e w r i t e r c a n " b e l i e v e h e i s a s s e r t i n g himself i n l a n g u a g e , b u t w h a t h e i s a s s e r t i n g i s c o m p l e t e l y w i t h o u t a self [ p e u t c r o i r e q u ' i l s'affirme en ce l a n g a g e , m a i s c e q u ' i l affirme est t o u t à fait p r i v é d e s o i ] " a n d " h e c a n n e v e r a g a i n e x p r e s s himself a n d h e c a n n o t a p p e a l t o y o u either, n o r let a n y o n e else s p e a k [il ne p e u t p l u s j a m a i s s ' e x p r i m e r et il ne p e u t pas d a v a n t a g e en appeler à toi, ni encore d o n n e r

115

la p a r o l e à a u t r u i ] . " In the n e u t r a l i z i n g s p a c e <>l l i t e r a t u r e , he

abandoned by referent es, emptied of subject a n d o b j e c t — w h e r e

loses t h e p o w e r t o say " I , " a n d lie finds h e c a n n o t " g i v e life t o

all is s u c h as u is. Irreparably so.

1

c h a r a c t e r s w h o s e f r e e d o m w o u l d b e g u a r a n t e e d b y his c r e -

T h e writer, then, is " p o s s e s s e d " by no o n e , by the a n o n y -

ative force [ d o n n e r vie à des p e r s o n n a g e s d o n t sa force c r é a t r i c e

m o u s . H e c a n n o t n a r r a t e himself, b e c a u s e h e i s n o o n e ; h e i s

g a r a n t i r a i t l a l i b e r t é ] . " T o w r i t e , t o e n t e r t h e N e u t e r , "is t o

Quelqu'un, S o m e o n e b u t no o n e in p a r t i c u l a r — d a s Man. T h e

arrange language under fascination, and, through language,

Blanchotian writer is not Anna O. w h o was "possessed" by

in language, to r e m a i n in contact w i t h the absolute milieu,

" a n o t h e r m e " s u c h t h a t n o e x t e r i o r i z a t i o n o f this o t h e r w a s

where the thing becomes an image again, where the image,

ever p o s s i b l e for h e r i n t h e m o d e o f n a r r a t i v e , a s F r e u d ( a n d

w h i c h h a d b e e n a l l u s i o n t o a figure, b e c o m e s a n a l l u s i o n t o

L a c a n ) w i s h e d , b e c a u s e s h e w a s herself t h e d e m o n w h o p o s -

w h a t is w i t h o u t figure [ . . . ] w h e n t h e r e is no w o r l d yet [c'est

sessed h e r . W r i t i n g is n o t a c a s e of h y s t e r i a . T h e h y s t e r i c is

d i s p o s e r le l a n g a g e s o u s f a s c i n a t i o n et, p a r lui, en lui, d e m e u r e r

n o t H o m e r , w h o c o u l d p a s s f r o m first t o t h i r d p e r s o n , f r o m

en c o n t a c t avec le milieu absolu, là où la chose redevient im-

p u r e t o d r a m a t i c diegesis. T h e d i s c o u r s e o f t h e h y s t e r i c , a s o f

a g e , où l ' i m a g e , d ' a l l u s i o n à u n e figure, d e v i e n t a l l u s i o n à ce

a n y m u l t i p l e - p e r s o n a l i t y p a t i e n t , is n o t a mixed mode.

q u i est s a n s figure et { . . . ) q u a n d il n ' y a p a s e n c o r e de

w r i t e i s n o t t o p a s s f r o m " I " t o another " I . " I t i s t o p a s s f r o m

2

monde]."

3

5

6

" I " to

To

t o t h e n e u t r a l i z a t i o n o f all i d e n t i t i e s , o f all " P s . "

T h i s o b s c u r e r e g i o n , s k e t c h e d o u t i n " T h e E s s e n t i a l Soli-

Writing is n o t hypnotic or ventriloquized speech. It is n o t the

t u d e " ( a n d i n m a n y , i f n o t all, o f B l a n c h o t ' s o t h e r essays) i s

somnambulistic discourse of someone ravished by a n o t h e r ego.

t h e r e g i o n of t h e il y a: "[AJlien to r e v e l a t i o n , n o t e v e n b e -

Plato's Ion w a s not demonically possessed. But Plato saw in

cause it is radically d a r k , but because it transforms everything

Ion the image of madness, an image of radical depropriation.

t h a t h a s access t o it, e v e n light, i n t o a n o n y m o u s a n d i m p e r -

F u r t h e r m o r e , we learn from Philippe L a c o u e - L a b a r t h e

s o n a l b e i n g , t h e N o t - t r u e , t h e N o t - r e a l a n d yet a l w a y s t h e r e

P l a t o " c a u g h t a g l i m p s e of" a n d " r e d u c e d t o a l i t e r a r y p r o b -

[étranger à t o u t e révélation, ni m ê m e parce qu'elle serait radi-

l e m " t h e v e r y " t e r r o r i z i n g " p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t d i s c o u r s e itself

8

7

that

calement obscure, mais parce qu'elle transforme t o u t ce qui a

c o n t a i n s , or ¿5, t h e v e r y p o s s i b i l i t y of a general m i m e s i s , a

access à elle m ê m e la l u m i è r e , en l'être a n o n y m e i m p e r s o n n e l ,

general i n s t a b i l i t y t h a t is in fact p o s i t i v e a n d p o w e r f u l e s p e -

l e N o n - v r a i , l e N o n - r é e l e t c e p e n d a n t t o u j o u r s l à ] . " (We s h o u l d

cially i n t h o s e f a b l e s , o r " o l d w i v e s ' t a l e s , " t h a t h a v e n o a u -

n o t e t h a t t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f B l a n c h o t ' s c o u l d easily h a v e b e e n

t h o r , n o g u a r a n t o r s o m e w h e r e i n t h e w o r l d t o a n s w e r for t h e i r

written by Levinas.) To write is to be " p o s s e s s e d " by a n o n y m -

veracity. T h e s e " p a r a d o x i c a l l y a u t h o r i t a t i v e " fables, a s L a c o u e -

ity, t o b e seized b y i t a n d infinitesimally r e t a r d e d . T h i s " m i -

L a b a r t h e describes t h e m , are begun in the m o d e "it is said"

l i e u " i s a b s o l u t e b e c a u s e i t d o e s n o t refer t o a n y p l a c e i n t h e

a n d exist, t h e r e f o r e , e n t i r e l y w i t h i n d i s c o u r s e itself. T h e y a r e ,

w o r l d . I t a b - s o l v e s itself f r o m t h e r e a l , a n d i s a n a b s e n c e o f

i n fact, e x e m p l a r y o f all a u t h o r i t y . T h u s P l a t o s o u g h t t o r i d

inside o r o u t s i d e . T o w r i t e i s t o lose oneself i n this r e g i o n w h e r e

d i s c o u r s e o f this i n s t a b i l i t y a n d t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s H o m e r i c i s m

there is n o t h i n g to be revealed, expressed, m e a n t , or s h o w n ,

b y t a r g e t i n g p o e t s a n d m a k i n g t h e m r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e v e r a c -

b e c a u s e n o t h i n g is e v e n h i d d e n . It is t h e r e g i o n of a m b i g u i t y ,

ity o f d i s c o u r s e s t h e y o n l y re-cite. I n fact, h o w e v e r , d i s c o u r s e

4

is t h i s i m p u r i t y , this h e s i t a t i o n between "Ps." 1 )iscourse is neu-

w i t h o u t evei attaining it. At t h e i n s t a n t of her d e a t h , J. no

tral w i t h r e g a r d to its p r o p r i e t y . T h e r e is a n a t u r a l a m b i g u i t y

longer depends on all thai she w a s , yet she is n o n e - o t h e r t h a n

in discourse with regard to authority, and to speak, or to write,

"all t h a i she w a s . " She b e c o m e s , i n t h a t s e n s e , all t h a t i s s u b -

i s first t o p a s s t o this equivocality. T h e r e i s n o f i n a l w a y , m e t h o d ,

t r a c t e d f r o m her.

o r t e c h n i q u e t h a t c a n r i d d i s c o u r s e o f its essential a m b i g u i t y .

Likewise, the w o r k of art attains a strange independence

T o w r i t e i s t o p a s s t o this p u r e l y linguistic s p a c e w h e r e I a m

f r o m all t h a t w e n t i n t o it. I t n o l o n g e r b e a r s a n y d e p e n d e n c e

p r i o r t o myself, w h e r e s p e a k i n g i s t h e p u r e p a s s i o n o f s p e a k -

o n a n y r e a l c o n d i t i o n s a n d , f r o m t h e " s t a r t " o f its " l i f e " (as

i n g - b e i n g itself, d e p r o p r i a t e d o f ail i d e n t i t y a n d n e a r t o m a d -

a n a r t w o r k ) , i t s e p a r a t e s itself f r o m t h e w o r l d s o t h a t i t b e -

n e s s , if n o t a l r e a d y its i m a g e .

c o m e s a p u r e resemblance resembling nothing. It becomes in-

T o w r i t e , o r t o s p e a k , i s t o e n t e r i n t o t h a t w h i c h , i n itself,

itselfness. W h e n I l o o k at a p a i n t i n g or w h e n I r e a d a n o v e l , I

p r e c e d e s itself. It is to be s t r i p p e d of all i d e n t i t y a n d to b e -

p e r c e i v e w i t h o u t p e r c e i v i n g a n y t h i n g . I a m affected w i t h o u t

c o m e a p u r e i m a g e (of n o o n e ) — u n a b l e a n y m o r e t o b e , o r n o t

f i n d i n g myself i n a n y p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e o f m i n d . T h e w o r k o f

to be. It is to become, not another persona, but instead the

art, as we have said, is m a d e up of imaginary, fabulous matter

p u r e passion of c o m m u n i c a t i o n , where passion is c o m m u n i -

t h a t is indistinguishable from the sensations it evokes. Imagi-

cation a n d w h e r e my identity is this passionate, vertiginous

nary matter is sensational because it c a n n o t be dissociated from

" n o o n e " w h o c a n n o t a n s w e r for w h a t i s w r i t t e n . T h i s s p a c e

s e n s a t i o n itself (i.e., s e n s a t i o n b e f o r e it is a s e n s a t i o n o / s o m e -

i s t h e p u r e a n t e r i o r i t y o r p u r e reserve f r o m w h i c h all a r t c o m e s .

thing). The w o r k of art is nothing but fabulous, imaginary,

It is u n l i v a b l e , u n e n d u r a b l e (i.e., it h a s no d u r a t i o n ) a n d it is

sensational matter—matter emptied of the space it w o u l d oc-

t h a t w h i c h w i t h d r a w s f r o m a n y a c t u a l s t a t e o f affairs. W r i t -

c u p y a n d t h a t , " s i m p l e a n d a b s o l u t e , " h u r l s itself t o w a r d s u s .

1 0

ing is a petrified t r a n s c e n d e n c e , an e v e n t t h a t is n o t e v e n p o t e n -

I m a g i n a r y m a t t e r c o n f u s e s m a t t e r a n d s e n s a t i o n s u c h t h a t sen-

tially a c c o m p l i s h a b l e . I t i s a l w a y s " b e t w e e n , " o r " m e a n w h i l e . "

s a t i o n b e c o m e s e x t e r i o r i t y a n d t a k e s o n its o w n life i n d e p e n -

T o p a s s t o i l i s t o p a s s t o " h e " w h o c a r r i e s o u t a n infinite

d e n t o f a n y sensum. I n t h e w o r k o f a r t t h e r e i s n o l o n g e r a n y

9

m o v e m e n t ("infinite d e g r e e s , " B l a n c h o t s a y s ) . W r i t i n g m o v e s

r e f e r e n c e t o s u b j e c t a n d o b j e c t , a n d s e n s a t i o n itself i s b o r n i n

u s t o w a r d t h a t w h i c h i s a l w a y s in-itself, t h a t w h i c h d e p e n d s

t h e l i b e r a t i o n o f m a t t e r f r o m objectality. I m a g i n a r y m a t t e r i s

o n n o c o n d i t i o n since i t i s alien t o all a c t u a l i t y , i n i t i a t i v e , a n d

i n c o m m e n s u r a b l e w i t h objectality a n d is the very thickening

accomplishment.

of the h y p h e n that separates/links subject-object. W h e n mat-

W e h a v e seen i n p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r s t h a t t h e w o r k o f a r t

ter n o l o n g e r a d h e r e s t o a n o b j e c t , i t s u d d e n l y " a p p e a r s . " B u t

i m m e d i a t e l y d e t a c h e s itself f r o m t h e c o n d i t i o n s (the m a t e r i a l s

as it " a p p e a r s " as no object or no form, it immediately disap-

a n d t h e a c t u a l h i s t o r i c a l states-of-affairs) t h a t i t s p r a n g f r o m .

p e a r s . T h a t is, i t d o e s n o t e n t e r i n t o a n y p e r c e p t i o n , b u t r a t h e r

We s a w as w e l l in L'arrêt de mort t h a t , at t h e i n s t a n t of h e r

i t b e g i n s (or r e b e g i n s ) a n infinite c o n t e s t a t i o n o f p e r c e p t i o n .

d e a t h , J . b e c a m e n o l o n g e r herself, n o l o n g e r a n y o n e . A t t h e

L e v i n a s h a s s h o w n us t h a t " p a i n t i n g is a struggle w i t h s i g h t . "

i n s t a n t o f h e r d e a t h she e x h i b i t e d t h a t " s h e " w h o i s q u a s i -

T h i s s t r u g g l e is t h e r e t u r n of t h e dynamis of s e n s a t i o n itself,

e t e r n a l l y p r e s e r v e d in-herself, a l w a y s a t t h e lips o f t h e a c t u a l

b e f o r e s e n s a t i o n e n t e r s i n t o a n y e x p e r i e n c e (in t h e K a n t i a n

11

s e n s e ) . The s t r u g g l e Levinas refers to is .1 pure affection—as

community, 1 >ui a t ommunity nevertheless. What il that w h i c h

p a s s i v e as it is d y n a m i c , as d y n a m i c as it is p a s s i o n a t e . A r t

r e m a i n s invisible a m i u n p e r c e i v e d w a s in fact t h a t w h i c h in

t e n d s t o w a r d this infinite, p e r s i s t e n t m o v e m e n t t h a t i s t h e af-

any c o m m u n i t y escapes it such that o n e always already " b e -

fection of s e n s a t i o n by t h e i m a g i n a r y m a t e r i a l i t y it itself is.

longs" to any c o m m u n i t y whatever without, however, belong-

S e n s a t i o n itself, or p u r e p a s s i o n , is n e u t r a l . It is t h e e x t e r i o r i t y

ing b a s e d o n a n y r e p r e s e n t a b l e c o n d i t i o n ? W h a t w o u l d i t m e a n

o f o u r m o s t p a s s i o n a t e inferiority, a s w e shall d i s c u s s m o r e

to belong to a community purely anonymously? To belong to

t h o r o u g h l y later in this c h a p t e r .

a c o m m u n i t y b e f o r e it is a c o m m u n i t y of. . . (this or t h a t ,

O u r r a p p o r t with the a r t w o r k , as with the cadaver, is n o t

m e n , G o d ' s c r e a t u r e s , etc.)? A c o m m u n i t y w i t h o u t a n y essence

m a d e up of memories but of the sudden eruption of the imme-

o r a n y p r e c o n d i t i o n s o f b e l o n g i n g ? G i o r g i o A g a m b e n profiles

m o r i a l — a r a p p o r t t h a t i s c o n t i n u a l l y s u b t r a c t e d f r o m all a c -

for us s u c h a c o m m u n i t y in his r e m a r k a b l e b o o k La comunità

tual, representational states one m a y have enjoyed w i t h the

che viene. He d e s c r i b e s a c o m m u n i t y to w h i c h o n e is c a l l e d by

d e p a r t e d o r w i t h t h a t w h i c h t h e a r t w o r k p r i m a facie r e p r e s e n t s .

virtue of p u r e " b e i n g called [l'esser-detto]": the " p r o p e r t y

T h a t is to say, we e n t e r i n t o a r a p p o r t t h a t is autonomous a n d

[ p r o p r i e t à ] , " h e says " t h a t e s t a b l i s h e s all p o s s i b l e b e l o n g i n g

w h o s e r e l a t i o n t o all lived a n d m e m o r i a l e x p e r i e n c e s o r s t a t e s

[che f o n d a t u t t e l e possibili a p p a r t e n e n z e ] . " T h i s " p r o p e r t y "

of mind is always equivocal. This rapport, which the artwork

h e tells u s , i s " p u r e l y l i n g u i s t i c b e i n g [ l ' e s s e r e p u r a m e n t e

provokes, is the becoming-equivocal of m e m o r y and percep-

linguistico]."

t i o n . It is t h e b e c o m i n g - e q u i v o c a l or b e c o m i n g - f a b u l o u s of the real. T h e r a p p o r t is a u t o n o m o u s because it has no subject or o b j e c t . It is a b s o l u t e . It is n o t a r a p p o r t with a n y thing

Whatever!

( o t h e r t h a n its o w n o b s e s s i v e " s e l f " ) . H e n c e i t i s t h e m o s t u n -

T h e " s p a c e " or structure of Agamben's b o o k is

c e r t a i n o f r a p p o r t s a n d t h e m o s t p e r s i s t e n t , since i t c a n n o t b e

crazy, slightly d r u n k (even a s t h e t h i n k i n g i n i t i s p r e c i s e a n d

absorbed into anything determinate or accomplished. It can-

d e l i c a t e ) . E a c h o f its brief t h r e e o r four p a g e s e c t i o n s , frag-

n o t be p u t behind us because it is a r a p p o r t with the n o n t h i n g

m e n t s , o r p a n e l s (like i n c o m i c b o o k s ) a t t e m p t s t o t h i n k t h e

t h a t s h i m m e r s " b e s i d e " the thing in a space e m p t y of space. It

same thought

c a n n o t b e p o s s e s s e d a n d p u t t o w o r k i n t h e service o f a n y

ample," "Ease," "Manner," "Halo,"

t a s k , b u t i t c a n b e a f f i r m e d — m u s t b e a f f i r m e d — o b l i q u e l y , for

"Principium Individuations, "

i t i s w i t h o u t a n y self o r identity. Every a r t w o r k i s a n o b l i q u e

a n d t h e rather, a m o n g still o t h e r s . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o r e a d e a c h

a f f i r m a t i o n o f this r a p p o r t t h a t resists definition.

section or panel as superimposed on the others or as if each

under various

names:

"Image,"

"Quodlibet ens,"

"Ex-

"Shekinah," " B a r t l e b y , "

Heidegger's as, the thus,

W h a t if this neutralizing space, as close as possible to

s i m u l t a n e o u s l y o c c u p i e d t h e s a m e s p a c e (or p e r p e t u a l l y e m p t y

m a d n e s s (if n o t its v e r y p o s s i b i l i t y a n d b e g i n n i n g ) — t h i s s p a c e

thought) s u c h t h a t e a c h is a n e w , d i s p a r a t e p e r s p e c t i v e b u t of

t h a t d i s c o u r s e itself o p e n s u p a n d m a i n t a i n s a n d t h a t litera-

no landscape or argument. We m a y describe the b o o k as eru-

ture purely a n d simply affirms—what if this space emptied of

dite, or as a philosophical serendipity, b u t t h a t seems beside

all i d e n t i t i e s w e r e a l r e a d y a c o m m u n i t y ? It w o u l d be a s t r a n g e

t h e p o i n t , for it is as if t h e s e p a n e l s c a m e from e l s e w h e r e t h a n

o n e m i n d or o n e t h i n k e r . T h e work, i! a n y t h i n g , is variously

each i n he. 0 1 I H I o w n c o m p l e t e l y s i n g u l a r w a y . T o t h e a d u l t

e r u d i t e , a s i f A g a m b e n himself ( a n d w e k n o w n o t h i n g a b o u t

w h o w a t t lies, i Ins t e n d s to petrify t h e o b j e c t a n d m a k e of it an

h i m p e r s o n a l l y ) w e r e a c r a z y a u t o - d i c t a t w h o s e poly vocal e r u -

i m a g e o f itself. A n y o n e w h o h a s h a d t o t e n d m o r e t h a n t w o

diti o n a l w a y s t h r e a t e n e d t o t r a n s f o r m h i m i n t o a m u l t i p l e -

children at once is a w a r e of the b r e a k u p of perception into

p e r s o n a l i t y c a s e . B u t w e insist t h a t t h e sense o f a l m o s t c o m i -

r a d i c a l p e r s p e c t i v i s m a n d r a d i c a l l y p l u r a l i z e d significations.

cal e r u d i t i o n i s q u i t e t o t h e p o i n t . H e i s n o t o b s e s s e d s o m u c h

O u r perspective is a perspective on that which has returned to

w i t h a n ideé fixe b u t w i t h a n I d e a t h a t p e r p e t u a l l y i n f i x e s

its o r i g i n a r y i m a g e a n d i s w i t h o u t f i g u r e , a s i f o u r p e r c e p t i o n

thought, so that thoughts themselves become pure perspec-

w e r e t e m p o r a r i l y b l i n d e d . W e are n o l o n g e r a b l e t o see a n

tives, or images of t h o u g h t , w i t h o u t forming any one figure.

image of this or that, a n d o u r perception is o v e r w h e l m e d a n d

We

m a y w i s h to c o m p a r e La

comunità

che viene to a

pulverized by pure perspectivism.

B a l t h u s s t r e e t scene w h e r e e a c h o f t h e c h a r a c t e r s i n t h e s t r e e t

A g a m b e n ' s f r a g m e n t s , o r p a n e l s , a r e all c o m m e n t a r i e s , h e

q u i e t l y o c c u p i e s its o w n s p a c e a n d g o e s a b o u t its b u s i n e s s b u t

tells u s , o n a n old m e t a p h y s i c a l p r o b l e m : t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n

w h e r e e a c h s e e m s t o b e l o o k i n g i n t o o r m o v i n g i n t o different

e s s e n c e a n d e x i s t e n c e , quid est a n d quod est. E a c h f r a g m e n t

s p a c e s s o t h a t , a s w e l o o k a t t h e c a n v a s , o u r g a z e i s petrified.

r e t h i n k s this p r o b l e m ( w h i c h i s t h e p r o b l e m o f intelligibility

O u r gaze looks into no one space, b u t rather is transferred

itself) a n e w , offers a n o t h e r p e r s p e c t i v e o n t h e p r o b l e m , a n d i n

from various space to various space, each tangential to the

e a c h c a s e s e e k s t o liquefy t h e n o t i o n o f e s s e n c e a s s t a b l e a n d

o t h e r , b u t n o t o r g a n i c a l l y r e l a t e d . I n this w a y , e a c h c h a r a c t e r

s t a b i l i z i n g , p r o p e r , erect, a n d unifying. I n s t e a d of an esse, he

b e c o m e s s i m p l e , s e r e n e , a b s o l u t e , a n d is p o s s e s s e d by a s t r a n g e

a t t e m p t s t o t h i n k a " m o s t c o m m o n " o r the m o s t c o m m o n . H e

d e t a c h m e n t . O u r gaze is n o t merely passive a n d c o n t e m p l a -

a t t e m p t s to t h i n k

t i v e . I t c a n n o t b u t get i n v o l v e d since i t c a n n o t e v e n f i n d w h a t

quelconque), w h i c h , his t r a n s l a t o r c a u t i o n s u s , refers n o t t o

w o u l d b e called t h e s p a c e o f t h e c a n v a s . O u r eye i s d r a w n into

the general or the particular, the generic or the individual, b u t

t h e c a n v a s , w h o s e " s p a c e " i s m i s s i n g , a n d w h i c h itself, t h e n ,

t o t h e " s i n g u l a r " i n t h e sense i n w h i c h D e l e u z e a n d B a d i o u

b e c o m e s a n e n o r m o u s eye s t a r i n g a t u s w i t h a g a z e e m p t i e d o f

use the t e r m .

sight. This is Balthus's technique a n d it w a s first noticed, as

p r o a c h e s in his f r a g m e n t s b o t h i n v o l v e s us in a " b e l o n g i n g "

far a s w e c a n tell, b y A n t o n i n A r t a u d , w h o c o n t r a s t s i t t o

a n d also deprives us of any representable condition of belong-

n

t r o m p e l'oeil.

12

Instead of d u p i n g us into believing t h a t s o m e -

1 4

t h e W h a t e v e r or

Quodlibet (qualunque or

The commonality Agamben repeatedly ap-

ing. For the W h a t e v e r is just t h a t — w h a t e v e r !

thing real is there t h a t is n o t there, Balthus overcomes or over-

T h e r e i s n o t h i n g m y s t e r i o u s , m a g i c a l , o r ineffable a b o u t

w h e l m s t h e d i s t a n c e d p a s s i v i t y o f c o n t e m p l a t i o n b y petrifying

the Whatever. It is as c o m m o n as can be. It is the m o s t c o m -

t h e r e a l . H e a c c o m p l i s h e s this b y b r e a k i n g u p p e r s p e c t i v e i n t o

m o n . It is not representable or themetizable, not because it is

f r a g m e n t s (of n o w h o l e s ) t h u s giving his c h a r a c t e r s t h e s p h i n x -

w i t h d r a w n , silent, n e g a t i v e , or r e m o v e d , b u t because it is too

like q u a l i t y t h a t A r t a u d n o t i c e d i n his review. O n e c a n o b -

common. It is n o t e v e n h i d d e n , a n d it offers n o t h i n g to be

serve the s a m e thing a m o n g children w h o are each fascinated

thought, contemplated, or worried about. T h o u g h t need not

by, a n d t o t a l l y i n v o l v e d i n p l a y i n g w i t h , t h e s a m e o b j e c t s b u t

seek after it, for it is a l r e a d y in every t h o u g h t a n d in e v e r y

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Ii is not .1 g e n e r i c " g i v e n " thai we c a n a l w a y s

particulai o u r 0! those predicates ( b e i n g - m a s c u l i n e , b e i n g -

f a l l b a c k o n , n o r a b a n a l b a c k g r o u n d for any p o s s i b l e c o m -

A m e r i c a n , e.g.) e x p o s e s a relation b e t w e e n a real b e i n g a n d

m u n i t y s u c h a s " W e ' r e all h u m a n , " o r "It's a small w o r l d , " o r

an empty t o t a l i t y , a n o n t h i n g , or n o t h i n g t h a t r e n d e r s t h i s r e a l

" T o e a c h his o w n a s l o n g a s i t d o e s n ' t h u r t a n y o n e e l s e . " T h e

being a

m o s t c o m m o n , like t h e il y a in L e v i n a s a n d B l a n c h o t , is w h a t

b l o o d l e s s a n d m a k e it, like S a r t r e ' s ego, p u r e a n d s i m p l e t r a n -

n e e d s t o b e r e p e a t e d l y a p p r o a c h e d a n d e x p o s e d , for t h e m o s t

scendence.

c o m m o n i s o n l y i n its a p p r o a c h , its e x p o s u r e , its " c o m i n g . "

relation to language,

To a p p r o a c h the W h a t e v e r is to a p p r o a c h an ever-elsewhere

g u a g e is w h a t e v e r b e i n g as it is, yet w i t h o u t b e i n g defined o n c e

t h a t i s n o t a b s e n t , a n e v e r - h e r e t h a t i s n o t p r e s e n t . Qualunque

a n d for all: n o t being its p r e d i c a t e s b u t being-called (this or

is the neutralization of identity t h a t is in every r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

t h a t , " A m e r i c a n , " " m a s c u l i n e , " e.g.). W h a t e v e r b e i n g i s n o t

while remaining noncontemporary with that representation.

its q u a l i t i e s . It is its e x p o s u r e to all its q u a l i t i e s t h a t e a c h p a r -

It is o n l y g l i m p s e d in profile, or in t h e s h a d o w s of a p e r c e p -

t i c u l a r q u a l i t y r e s a y s o r re-calls. T h e e x i s t e n c e o f w h a t e v e r

t i o n or a feeling.

b e i n g is p u r e l y l i n g u i s t i c , p u r e l y b e i n g - c a l l e d . T h u s it is in l a n -

whateverness. 15

This does

not drain whatever being

It means that whatever being is a pure a n d empty to p r e d i c a t i o n ,

s u c h t h a t o n l y in l a n -

W h a t e v e r b e i n g is n o t a s u b j e c t , bypokeimenon, or s u b -

g u a g e t h a t w h a t e v e r b e i n g f i n d s itself, suffers itself, t o u c h e s

s t a n c e t h a t u n d e r l i e s all its p r e d i c a t e s a n d i s w h a t e v e r r e m a i n s

itself in t h e p u r e p a s s i o n of b e i n g - c a l l e d . It is itself as an e m p t y

w h e n all its q u a l i t i e s a r e r e m o v e d . It is n o t a limit t h a t g r o u n d s

t o t a l i t y t h a t e n v e l o p s its r e a l e x i s t e n c e a s t h i s o r t h a t .

intelligibility. W h a t e v e r b e i n g i s b e i n g s u c h t h a t all its p r e d i -

T h i s e m p t y t o t a l i t y is n o t a p u r e a n d s i m p l e v o i d . It is a

c a t e s u n l i m i t it infinitely, u n g r o u n d or l i b e r a t e it infinitely.

n o t h i n g or an empty space that is a d d e d to, or supplements,

W h a t e v e r b e i n g i s b e i n g t h a t f i n d s itself i n its u n l i m i t i n g . " A l l

a n y being whatsoever. It is a never present s u p p l e m e n t w i t h -

its p r e d i c a t e s " w n d e t e r m i n e w h a t e v e r b e i n g , u n r a v e l it, a n d

o u t w h i c h n o b e i n g c o u l d b e w h a t i t is. A n y p a r t i c u l a r b e i n g i s

expose it such that whatever being can only transcend t o w a r d

also " w h a t e v e r is called . . . " Any particular being of course

itself infinitely, t o w a r d itself s u c h a s i t i s — a n e m p t y t o t a l i t y

belongs to s o m e genus of s o m e species such t h a t it c a n be

t h a t "all its p r e d i c a t e s " (de)constitute a n d (de)limit. W h a t e v e r

identified a s w h a t i t i n fact i s a n d c a n b e e x p e r i e n c e d a s s u c h .

b e i n g i s b e i n g w h o s e Being i s p e r p e t u a l l y d e l a y e d , r e t a r d e d ,

B u t — a n d this is A g a m b e n ' s insight—it " b e l o n g s " to the ge-

or a p p r o a c h e d , for " a l l its p r e d i c a t e s " is n o t a p o s s i b i l i t y for

n u s a s a n example o f it, a s a n i m a g e o r s c h e m a - i m a g e o f a n y

whatever being. Rather, it is an impossibility that continually

s u c h m e m b e r of t h a t g e n u s . It is this p a r t i c u l a r and it is an

s h i m m e r s b e s i d e it, i n a n e m p t y i m a g i n a r y s p a c e " r e s e r v e d "

example of w h a t e v e r is c a l l e d t h i s or t h a t p a r t i c u l a r . It is t h i s

for i t b u t n e v e r o c c u p i e d .

p a r t i c u l a r ( h o u s e , e.g.) and it s e r v e s for, or s t a n d s in t h e p l a c e

T h i s d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t w h a t e v e r b e i n g strives m a j e s t i -

of, whatever is-called ( " h o u s e , " e.g.). As s u c h it e x p o s e s its

cally t o w a r d all t h a t i t c a n b e , t o w a r d a U t o p i a n self t h a t s h i m -

s i n g u l a r i t y , its w h a t e v e r n e s s . I t o c c u p i e s its o w n , a n d s i m u l t a -

m e r s in an inaccessible horizon lighting up a p a t h t o w a r d s an

n e o u s l y t h e e m p t y , p l a c e of t h e e x a m p l e . It is a p a r t i c u l a r a n d

ideal i d e n t i t y . I n s t e a d , s o m e t h i n g q u i t e different h a p p e n s . Since

it is so-called. It is itself (idem) a n d it is w h a t e v e r b e i n g . T h i s

" a l l its p r e d i c a t e s " is not a p r e d i c a t e of w h a t e v e r b e i n g , a n y

i s its s e c o n d life, its s e c o n d n a t u r e , A g a m b e n s a y s . I n s o f a r a s

it is-called, it is n e i t h e r shown n o r m e a n t , is n e i t h e r this p a r

e m p t y spa< 6 ol the e x a m p l e . T h i s e m p t y totality u n r a v e l s it of

t i c u l a r n o r an insipid generality. Il only fills the e m p t y s p a c e

i d e n t i t y a n d singulai r/.es it or " u n m a k e s it a c c o r d i n g to its

of t h e " w h a t e v e r is called . . ." As c a l l e d , as n a m e d , as an

i m a g e , " as Blanchot w o u l d s a y .

e x a m p l e , i t i s n o t t h e m a t i z e d a t all. N e c e s s a r i l y , t h e e x a m p l e

r e l a t i o n s , all its q u a l i t i e s . In t h e s p a c e of t h e e x a m p l e , t h e t h i n g

(or t h e s c h e m a - i m a g e ) is t h a t in l a n g u a g e for w h i c h t h e r e is no

i s "all its r e l a t i o n s " a n d " a l l its q u a l i t i e s . " T o b o r r o w f r o m

n a m e . It is t h e pure b e i n g - i n - l a n g u a g e of t h e n o n l i n g u i s t i c , t h e

one of A g a m b e n ' s o w n e x a m p l e s ,

u n n a m a b l e ( t h a t is, t h e n o n u n i v e r s a l t h a t i s n o t a p a r t i c u l a r ,

h e r e i s itself n o t b e c a u s e i t b e l o n g s t o a n ideal p - f o r m b u t

17

It is t h e t h i n g w i t h all its

1 8

this letter p t h a t I m a k e

either). T h e schema-image is the image of no (representable)

b e c a u s e i t b e l o n g s a m o n g , o r b o r d e r s o n , all t h e v a r i o u s dif-

figure. W e will l e a r n from o u r a n a l y s i s o f K a n t l a t e r i n t h i s

ferences a n d i d i o s y n c r a s i e s in i n n u m e r a b l e v e r s i o n s of p. T h e

c h a p t e r t h a t an o b j e c t is itself only insofar as it need not ap-

p h a s i d e n t i t y i n s o f a r as it b e l o n g s to an a l p h a b e t i c g e n u s , of

pear as in fact it actually does appear. As s u c h , as an e x a m p l e ,

c o u r s e , b u t it is r e c o g n i z a b l e as w h a t it is o n l y as e n g e n d e r e d

it is " g i v e n " all its possibilities as an e m p t y totality (a nonfigure)

b y a t h o u s a n d i d i o s y n c r a s i e s t h a t h a b i t u a l l y r e n d e r i t legible.

t h a t c h a n g e s n o t h i n g b u t t h e sense o f t h e a c t u a l . A s a n e x -

I n this w a y c o m m o n a n d p r o p e r b e c o m e i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m

a m p l e , a t h i n g is " t h e event of an o u t s i d e [I'evento di un fuori],"

each other. T h e t h o u s a n d idiosyncrasies describe an e m p t y

A g a m b e n s a y s , b y w h i c h i t h a s access t o itself (ipse), t o " i t s

i n t e r w o r l d w i t h i n w h i c h w h a t i s called p m o v e s freely a n d

16

a c c o r d i n g t o its o w n m a n n e r . T h e e m p t y t o t a l i t y o f " i t s " i d i o -

As e x e m p l a r y , a b e i n g is n o t defined by q u a l i t i e s e x c e p t

s y n c r a s i e s a r e n o t its p r o p e r t i e s b u t its i m p r o p r i e t i e s — i t s h a -

first b y p a s s i n g t h r o u g h b e i n g - c a l l e d , b y p a s s i n g t h r o u g h t h e

b i t u a l resistance to p r o p r i e t y , w h i c h in fact constitutes its r e c -

face, its eidos [il s u o v o l t o , il s u o eidos]" (italics in o r i g i n a l ) .

space of neither the particular nor the universal. A l t h o u g h a

o g n i z a b l e a p p e a r a n c e o n t h e p a g e . T h i s i s its s e c o n d n a t u r e ,

s u c h - a n d - s u c h will be a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , it is u n d e r s t o o d t h a t it

its s i n g u l a r i t y . T h u s A g a m b e n s h o w s u s s o m e t h i n g t h a t i s n o t

m u s t s e r v e for all o t h e r s o f t h e s a m e t y p e , a n d t h u s i t o c c u p i e s

e s t a b l i s h e d o n c e a n d for all, eternally, b u t t h a t w h i c h i s al-

t h e e m p t y p l a c e o f w h a t e v e r b e i n g — a s p a c e t h a t i s p u r e l y lin-

w a y s I'entretemps, d e l a y e d o r c o m i n g a m o n g s t

guistic a n d i n w h i c h i t c o m m u n i c a t e s w i t h o t h e r s i n g u l a r i t i e s

series o f m o d a l v a r i a t i o n s [ u n a serie infinita d i o s c i l l a z i o n i

u n b o u n d by any identity. It is strictly being-called, an

modali]."

u n n a m a b l e w i t h i n a n y d e n o m i n a t i o n t h a t i t m a y b e given. T h a t

s i n g u l a r i t y , t h a t i s its o s c i l l a t i o n s — a v i c a r i o u s s p a c e w h e r e

is:

e a c h i n d i v i d u a l p s u b s t i t u t e s itself for e a c h o t h e r p o s s i b l e p

it is a pure anteriority or infinite shortage

of presence

that

radically calls its identity into question. It is h e n c e c u t off f r o m a n y real c o m m u n i t y a n d yet it is t h e m o s t - c o m m o n . It is "whatever

is-called

..."

1 9

"an

infinite

Each individual p opens o n t o an exemplarity, a

s u c h t h a t this p a r t i c u l a r p is i n c a r n a t e d as s u b s t i t u t e d . In this a n d in m a n y other w a y s , A g a m b e n describes c o m m u n i t y such t h a t each being occupies a particular place t h a t is

W h a t e v e r b e i n g is n o t a je ne sais quoi, an o b s c u r e q u a l i t y

radically in question as it opens o n t o another space where

n o o n e c a n p u t t h e i r f i n g e r o n . I t i s t h e t h i n g with all its p r e d i -

e a c h b e i n g i s a l w a y s a l r e a d y s u b s t i t u t e d for a n o t h e r b e i n g w h o

c a t e s t h a t undefine or d e l i m i t it. Quodlibet ens is t h e t h i n g

is in an always other place. In that " o t h e r " space, "beside

ipse, b u t o n l y i n s o f a r as it " t r a n s c e n d s t o w a r d itself" in t h e

itself," as exemplary, it c o m m u n i c a t e s w i t h all o t h e r singularities.

a k, n IM w i u

/\ i l l '

i ii i

l'ii i I I I C A I

NEUTER

T h i s is not an actualized c o m m u n i t y . No i n f o r m a t i o n is p a s s e d

identity. W h e n I '.peak, no identity w o u l d s p e a k a n d I w o u l d

a l o n g i n a n y real c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h e c o m m u n i t y c o m m u n i -

s p e a k an imaginary, a b s o l u t e l a n g u a g e . I w o u l d be s p e a k i n g

c a t e s o n l y its b e l o n g i n g t o t h e m o s t - c o m m o n . I n t h e e x a m p l e ,

from t h e p l a c e o l the O t h e r w h o w o u l d r e m a i n a l w a y s else-

s i n g u l a r b e i n g is " e x p r o p r i a t e d of all i d e n t i t y ( e s p r o p r i a t e di

w h e r e . As s u c h , I w o u l d a p p r o a c h t h e o t h e r as other, o u t s i d e

tutte le identità]"

2 0

a n d a b a n d o n e d to pure a n d simple be-

a n y identity, for I w o u l d n o t be t h e s u b j e c t of a n y d i s c o u r s e .

l o n g i n g . (It is n o t as myself, b u t as s i n g u l a r , as other, t h a t I am

"Older"

t h a n a n y communique w o u l d b e t h i s r a p p o r t w i t h

exposed to the other. " I , " in short, to return to the language

the O t h e r outside intersubjectivity, a n d completely linguistic

o f B l a n c h o t , b e c o m e s H e , il, N e u t e r . T h e m u l t i p l e c o m m o n

b e i n g w o u l d " c o m e " t o u s like a l o n g s u p p r e s s e d r e m i n i s c e n c e

space described by A g a m b e n r e m a i n s , in my o p i n i o n , close to

o r like a l o n g - s u p p r e s s e d p a s s i o n . C o m m u n i c a t i o n w o u l d t h e n

B l a n c h o t i a n a e s t h e t i c s , i n spite o f A g a m b e n ' s r e s e r v a t i o n s . )

21

be united w i t h this passionate r a p p o r t , or for-the-other-ness,

In Agamben's politics, the expropriation of identity a n d

in a s p e e c h t h a t says n o t h i n g , r e v e a l s n o t h i n g , a n d t h a t is as a

t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n — t o d a y s o i n e s c a p a b l e — o f t h e real i n t o its

foreign l a n g u a g e w i t h i n o n e ' s n a t i v e t o n g u e (as t h e n a r r a t o r

image provide us with an unprecedented opportunity to ap-

of L'arrèt de mort e x p e r i e n c e s ) .

p r o p r i a t e t h e m o s t - c o m m o n a n d t o e x p e r i e n c e t h e fact t h a t

w o u l d "possess" us a n d open a space that is not-yet colonized

12

one speaks. T h i s w o u l d a l s o be t h e v e r y a p p r o p r i a t i o n of ( o r

23

This radical communicativity

by the State.

by) a n o n y m i t y t h a t a n i m a t e s all o f B l a n c h o t ' s n a r r a t o r s a n d i t perfectly d e s c r i b e s B l a n c h o t ' s m e d i t a t i o n s o n w r i t i n g a n d t h e s p a c e o f l i t e r a t u r e . For, w h e n one s p e a k s , n o o n e ( n o t h e n o r

Community

she, n o t this o n e n o r t h a t one) speaks. O n e becomes w h a t e v e r

T h e fate a n d d e s t i n y o f a c o m m u n i t y ( h u m a n b e -

or w h o m e v e r speaker, one becomes speaking-being as such,

ing) t h a t d o e s n o t h a v e its origin i n itself a n d c a n n o t f i n d its

a n d n o t a m o r e - o r less-qualified s p e a k e r . I n d e e d , o n e i s d e -

o r i g i n o u t s i d e itself e x c e p t i n silence, t r a g e d y , o r a l i e n a t i o n —

p r o p r i a t e d o f all d e t e r m i n a t e q u a l i t i e s a n d o n e e n t e r s t h e e n -

in s h o r t , a negative g r o u n d — i s t h e subject of A g a m b e n ' s m e d i -

tire space of discourse, such that the one w h o speaks c a n n o t

t a t i o n in his e a r l i e r b o o k Language and Death: The Place of

b e a s c e r t a i n e d o r identified, b u t c i r c u l a t e s w i t h i n d i s c o u r s e

Negativity

{Il linguaggio 14

e

la

morte:

Un

seminario

sul

luogo

itself. A s p u r e s p e a k i n g - b e i n g , I s p e a k w i t h o u t a n y o n e ' s b e i n g

della negatività].

In t h a t b o o k , he a t t e m p t s to a p p r o a c h an

able to trace my w o r d s back to me and hold me accountable

experience of language t h a t does n o t rest on a negative foun-

for t h e m , even if I s t a n d s m a c k in f r o n t of t h e o t h e r p e r s o n ,

dation and he does not find that experience in either philoso-

b e c a u s e t h e experience of s p e a k i n g - b e i n g d o e s n o t refer to a

p h y or poetry. Each of those traditions also traces the h u m a n

self t h a t I w o u l d b e . A s s p e a k i n g - b e i n g , u n a b l e t o refer t o a n y

voice t h r o u g h l a n g u a g e , b u t e a c h finds o n l y ineffability, silence,

reality, I w o u l d s p e a k w i t h o u t h a v i n g a n y b a s i s for s p e a k i n g ,

mystery, sacred action, or the tragic division of existence a n d

any reason to open my mouth. Moreover, I would speak with-

e s s e n c e , a n d t h e a b s o l u t e fear o f t h e H e g e l i a n t h r e a t o f t h e

o u t having anything to communicate. My speech w o u l d carry

N e g a t i v e t h a t m a g i c a l l y t r a n s f o r m s N o t h i n g n e s s i n t o Being.

no information intended to inform a n o t h e r speaker, a n o t h e r

T h a t i s t o say, n e i t h e r p h i l o s o p h y n o r p o e t r y i s a b l e t o g r a s p

t h e t a k i n g - p l a c e <>l l a n g u a g e w i n c h w o u l d he the t a k i n g - p l a c e

s u c h thai the Von e

the division ol n a t u r e a n d c u l t u r e , d e n o -

of t h e h u m a n (insofar as h u m a n b e i n g is s p e a k i n g - b e i n g ) s u c h

t a t i o n a n d signification, s h o w i n g a n d telling, e.g.—is a b o l i s h e d

t h a t h u m a n b e i n g w o u l d t h e n be capable of l a n g u a g e , seize

w i t h o u t a t r a c e . La comunità che viene is an a t t e m p t to t h i n k

t h e f a c u l t y for l a n g u a g e , a n d u n i t e it w i t h his finitude as a

habit, o u r " s e c o n d n a t u r e , " in s u c h a w a y t h a t it is n o t seized,

c o m p l e t e d f o u n d a t i o n . But, A g a m b e n says, h u m a n being, in

b u t t e n d s t o w a r d itself, t o w a r d t r a n s p a r e n c y . A g a m b e n ' s b o o k

fact, does not have a voice—a n a t u r e , an e s s e n c e — n o t e v e n a

i s a n a t t e m p t t o t h i n k l a n g u a g e a s ipse a n d n o t idem: l a n g u a g e

b a s i c a l l y r e m o v e d , s i l e n t , o r n e g a t i v e v o i c e (or V o i c e , a s

o u t s i d e identity, o r l a n g u a g e a s t h a t w h i c h h a s n o i d e n t i t y , n o

A g a m b e n c h r i s t e n s it). In s h o r t , t h e r e is no o r i g i n a l vouloir

essence. In d o i n g this, A g a m b e n is attempting to think that, if

dire, a n d t h i s , a l a s , h a s d e s t i n e d h u m a n b e i n g t o a h i s t o r y a n d

it is the essence of h u m a n being to exist—Heidegger's m o s t

a State (which we n o w inherit in the form of Capital). T h u s ,

difficult t h o u g h t — t h e n it is in l a n g u a g e , w h i c h h a s no e s s e n c e ,

w i t h N i e t z s c h e , A g a m b e n c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e Voice m u s t d i e .

2 5

t h a t h u m a n being b e c o m e s capable of this. Such a l a n g u a g e is

16

m e r e l y t h e " trite w o r d s t h a t we have [le trite p a r o l e c h e abbia-

B u t w h a t is l a n g u a g e w i t h o u t a Voice, w i t h o u t a Sigetics?

29

W h a t i s a l a n g u a g e t h a t d o e s n o t say perfectly a n d p r e s e r v e i n itself a n U n s a y a b l e , a n Ineffable, a M y s t e r y ? W h a t , i n s h o r t , is a language that does not c o n d e m n h u m a n being to a State, a Sacer, a d e s t i n y ? W h a t is a l a n g u a g e t h a t so i m p o v e r i s h e s h u m a n b e i n g t h a t t h e " e x t r e m e l y nullifying u n v e i l i n g [ e s t r e m o svelamento nullificante]"

27

that we today experience w o u l d

a c t u a l l y offer us a h o p e ? A h o p e n o t for an e x t r e m e H a v i n g -

mo}." All of his b o o k is an a t t e m p t to get " b e t w e e n " existence a n d essence into a p a r a o n o m a s t i c interworld t h a t t r a n s c e n d s o n l y t o w a r d itself a n d d o e s n o t refer b a c k t o a n a n t e r i o r r e a l ity t h a t w o u l d r e m a i n ineffable a n d u n s a y a b l e , n o r t o w a r d a fictitious signification t h a t w o u l d a n n i h i l a t e t h e r e a l a n d u n veil i t a s essentially N o t h i n g . T h i s i n t e r w o r l d i s p o p u l a t e d w i t h b e i n g s w h o s e b e i n g is o n l y in-language.

been that, in the Hegelian Absolute or the Heideggerian

T h o u g h t , h e tells u s , t r a d i t i o n a l l y w a n t s t o t h i n k e i t h e r

Ereignis, c o u l d be seized a n d a p p r o p r i a t e d , b u t a h o p e for a

t h e e x i s t e n c e o r t h e essence. A g a m b e n w a n t s t o t h i n k t h e i r

Never-having-been, an extreme youth or an absolute infancy

m u t u a l i m p l i c a t i o n , t h e e r o s i o n o f t h e i r difference, i n t h e a n -

Such

a m o r p h i c " s p a c e " b e t w e e n " t h e n a m e d t h i n g a n d its b e i n g -

a b e i n g — w h o never has b e e n — w o u l d speak a language t h a t

n a m e d , b e t w e e n t h e n a m e a n d its r e f e r e n c e t o t h e t h i n g : b e -

does n o t presuppose w o r k , meaning, or articulation. Such a

t w e e n , t h a t is, t h e n a m e ' r o s e ' i n s o f a r a s i t signifies t h e r o s e

b e i n g , n e v e r h a v i n g b e e n , w o u l d b e imaginary, i n t h a t " o t h e r "

a n d t h e r o s e i n s o f a r a s i t i s signified b y t h e n a m e ' r o s e ' . "

v e r s i o n B l a n c h o t defines for u s , a n d s u c h a l a n g u a g e w o u l d b e

T h i s d e l i c a t e i n t e r v a l is t h e p u r e e x p o s u r e of this to that (quod

a m b i g u o u s , since i t w o u l d a n d w o u l d n o t b e t h e voice o f h u -

t o quid), e x i s t e n c e t o e s s e n c e , s u c h t h a t t h e i r m u t u a l i m p l i c a -

m a n b e i n g . I t w o u l d n o l o n g e r refer b a c k t o a self h u m a n

t i o n is t h e p u r e thusness of t h e b e i n g , t h e ipseity of t h e ens. He

being w o u l d be.

f i n d s i n o u r e r a a n u n p r e c e d e n t e d o p p o r t u n i t y t o seize t h e

s u c h t h a t h u m a n b e i n g w o u l d n o t yet h a v e b e e n b o r n !

2 8

A g a m b e n ' s La comunità che viene is an a t t e m p t to t h i n k beyond the "magical" power of the negative. It attempts to t h i n k a n e x p e r i e n c e o f l a n g u a g e itself, t r a n s p a r e n t t o itself,

3 0

thus: t h e p u r e b e i n g - i n - l a n g u a g e o f t h e n o n l i n g u i s t i c . N o t p u r e being

(ousias

tes

ousias,

substantia

sine

qualitate)

but

pure

being-in-language. T h e p u r e r e l a t i o n t h a t i s n e i t h e r d e n o t e d

ii

M N IVI

i n

N

l\

IN

I i

l

I I I

r v i I

I I I I

A

I

IN

I

I I I

r I

I

)

I

n o r m e a n t , n e i t h e r s h o w n n o r said. N e i t h e r the s u b j e c t — t h e

so I.mull II because theit reality is entirely m a d e up of t h e i r

p u r e r e l a t i o n l e s s b e i n g t h a t c a n o n l y b e s h o w n a n d not s a i d —

v a r i o u s roles such that their m a n n e r i s m s , h a b i t s , l o o k s , v o c a l

n o r t h a t w h i c h is said of the thing in the proposition, but the

t o n a l i t i e s , a n d g e s t u r e s all b e c o m e characteristic a n d as f a m i l -

p e r f e c t l y exposed b e i n g t h a t is a l w a y s a l r e a d y in l a n g u a g e ,

iar a s t h e a c t o r s t h e m s e l v e s r e m a i n u n f a m i l i a r t o u s . T h e s e a r e

always already hollowed out by representation. This "be-

a c t o r s , i n s h o r t , w h o show u s t h e i r a n o n y m i t y a n d w e , i n t u r n ,

t w e e n " i s n o t t h e t h i n g i n its n o n r e l a t i o n a l d e n o t a t e d n e s s , n o r

quite a p p r o p r i a t e l y b e c o m e absolutely indifferent to t h e m .

t h e t h i n g in its i d e n t i t y (its m e a n i n g ) . It is t h e t h i n g itself (ipse).

They always play " t y p e s " a n d they are n o t h i n g a p a r t from

N o t pure being, but being-such: the being-such, A g a m b e n says,

t h e t y p e s t h e y play. T h e y r e m a i n s o u n k n o w n t o u s n o t b e -

of the " a s " in the question, " w h a t is being as being?" N o t ,

cause they hide an essence, but because they are completely

t h e r e f o r e , p r e l i n g u i s t i c s u b s t a n c e , n o r a n y said, b u t t h a t w h i c h

e x p o s e d . (If y o u ever t r o u b l e yourself t o s e a r c h t h r o u g h t h e

"exists" only as always already hollowed out by representa-

c r e d i t s for s u c h a n a c t o r ' s n a m e i t i s p r o b a b l y o n l y b e c a u s e

tion. Such beings p o p u l a t e Agamben's " c o m i n g c o m m u n i t y . "

y o u s u d d e n l y realize y o u ' v e b e e n seeing h i m o r h e r for y e a r s

I t m a y b e helpful h e r e t o t h i n k o f t h a t w o n d e r f u l p o p u l a -

without realizing it, a n d this h a s n o t h i n g to do w i t h t h e i r h a v -

tion w h o s e existence is purely plastic: the H o l l y w o o d c h a r a c -

i n g g i v e n a p a r t i c u l a r l y s t u n n i n g p e r f o r m a n c e . ) T h e r e is n o t h -

ter actor. These are actors w h o s e n a m e s m a y be k n o w n to us

i n g ineffable a b o u t t h e s e a c t o r s . T h e r e i s n o r e s i d u e o f g r e a t -

( T h e l m a Ritter, Elisha C o o k Jr., W a l t e r B r e n n a n ) b u t m u c h

n e s s , g e n i u s , o r e v e n t a l e n t t h a t clings t o t h e i r a p p e a r a n c e o n

m o r e often t h a n n o t t h e y r e m a i n u n k n o w n a n d f o r g o t t e n ,

the screen. T h e y are a void in the midst of the w h o l e ensemble

b u r i e d i n t h e c r e d i t s a t t h e e n d o f t h e film a s w e w a l k o u t o f

o f a c t o r s b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r for t h e p i c t u r e . W e b e c o m e a c c u s -

t h e t h e a t e r o r p u s h t h e r e w i n d b u t t o n . Yet t h e y a r e e v e r s o

t o m e d t o seeing t h e m , yet w e k n o w n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e m via

familiar a n d ever s o versatile, a p p e a r i n g y e a r after y e a r i n m o v -

biographies, cults, tabloids, talk s h o w s , or a w a r d s ceremo-

ies a n d o n T V s h o w s , i n W e s t e r n s , N o i r s , h i s t o r i c a l d r a m a s ,

nies. W e k n o w t h e m o n l y a s i m a g e s a n d w e see t h e m o n l y a s

b i o - p i c s , w a r p i c t u r e s , b e d r o o m farces a n d a c t i o n p o t b o i l e r s .

i m a g e s , t h a t is, as allegories of t h e m s e l v e s . E a c h r o l e is a n -

C h a r a c t e r actors are absolutely familiar to us b u t they never

o t h e r allegory.

p o s s e s s " s t a r q u a l i t y . " T h e y n e v e r get billing a b o v e t h e title o r

These marvelous actors are therefore singularities. T h e y

e v e n o n t h e m a r q u e e a t all, a n d t h e y n e v e r s t a r i n t h e i r o w n

c a n n o t b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d a s s t a r s n o r identified w i t h a p a r t i c u -

t e l e v i s i o n series o r e v e n costar. T h e y a r e n o t L o n C h a n e y , w h o

lar r o l e (for e a c h role t h e y play is an e c h o of all t h e o t h e r s — a l l

w o r k e d s o tirelessly a t t h e a r t o f self-disguise t h a t h e b e c a m e a

m o r e o r less t h e s a m e ) a n d t h e y s e e m perfectly a t e a s e w i t h

H o l l y w o o d l e g e n d a n d even h a d a film m a d e a b o u t h i m star-

"themselves." We can appreciate the star or g l a m o u r quality

ring J a m e s Cagney. Instead, these character actors we have in

o f G r a c e Kelly's p r e s e n c e o n t h e screen a n d t h e g r e a t n e s s (if

m i n d n e v e r w o r k h a r d t o disguise t h e m s e l v e s o r t o d i s s o l v e

n o t t h e genius) o f L a u r e n c e Olivier's t a l e n t — s o m e e x t r a o r d i -

into a role as in " m e t h o d " acting. To the contrary, they play

nary or extracinematic "essence"—but character actors are

t h e i r v a r i o u s r o l e s i n m u c h t h e s a m e w a y , film after f i l m , y e a r

c o m p l e t e l y a b s o r b e d i n t o t h e c e l l u l o i d , t h e stock, t h e s t e r e o -

after year, d e c a d e after d e c a d e . T h e y a r e a c t o r s w h o b e c o m e

t y p e s t h e y p l a y s o perfectly. T h e y a r e " t y p e s " a n d t h e y h a v e

a * i a ivi is r in

a s s u m e d t h e m s e l v e s as s u c h . The character a c t o r c a n n o t Inidentified w i t h a n y p a r t i c u l a r role hut n e i t h e r d o they e v o k e n o r e x p r e s s a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n the r o l e . T h e y h a v e a p u r e

a in p

i 11 i

r i ) i i t t i Al

NEUTER

I 3 5

confondersi quasi i o n essa, d a nimbarla. Essa non e I'identita d e l la cosa e, tuttavia, n o n e a l t r o (e non altro) che questa.] 12

relation to cinema. T h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e c h a r a c t e r actor, t h e n , i s t h e e x p e r i -

T h i s i m a g e , e v e n t , singularity, a l l e g o r y of itself, or I d e a 3 3

ence of p u r e being-in-language—an experience, Blanchot could

(as A g a m b e n u n d e r s t a n d s i t )

i s b e i n g s u c h - a s - i t - i s , its n o n e -

say, o f t h e e v e n t a s a n i m a g e , t h a t i s t o say, a s n o t h i n g o t h e r

o t h e r n e s s , or its n o t - o t h e r w i s e n e s s . As a c h a r a c t e r - a c t o r , t h e

t h a n its q u a l i t i e s b u t s u c h t h a t t h e s e q u a l i t i e s cling t o n o r e a l -

a c t o r b e c o m e s his o r her o w n i m a g e . C h a r a c t e r a c t o r s a r e c a p a -

ity, n o identity, a n d refer o n l y t o t h e m s e l v e s . L e v i n a s r e m i n d s

ble o f t h e i r n o t - o t h e r w i s e n e s s such t h a t , w i t h o u t a n y r e s i d u e ,

u s t h a t reality i s a l r e a d y its o w n such e v e n t . W e h a b i t u a l l y see

t h e y n e i t h e r b e t r a y a n essence n o r a s u b s t a n c e t h e y " r e a l l y "

a t h i n g as its i m a g e , n o t t h r o u g h it. Reality, he h a s t o l d u s , is

a r e , n o r d o t h e y identify t h e m s e l v e s w i t h a n y o n e r o l e , b u t

d u a l — i t is itself in its t r u t h (idem) a n d in its i m a g e , " l i k e a t o r n s a c k t h a t spills its c o n t e n t s . "

3 1

Very similarly, A g a m b e n

writes:

r a t h e r m o v e freely, h a p p i l y , i m p e r c e p t i b l y a n d i r r e p a r a b l y within the paraonomastic interzone of thusness. They are nothi n g o t h e r t h a n t h e i r t y p e s , m a n n e r i s m s , a n d g e s t u r e s , a n d yet t h e y are not t h e s e q u a l i t i e s . T h e y h a v e a s s u m e d t h e i r m a n n e r

It is as if t h e f o r m , t h e k n o w a b i l i t y , t h e f e a t u r e s of

of being improperly, habitually, w i t h o u t assuming this or t h a t

every entity w e r e d e t a c h e d f r o m it, n o t a s a n o t h e r t h i n g ,

q u a l i t y a s definitive o f t h e i r identity. T h e y a r e nicely i n s o u c i -

b u t a s a n intentio, a n a n g e l , a n i m a g e . T h e m o d e o f

ant, or cynical, or hypocritical with regard to image a n d real-

b e i n g of this intentio is n e i t h e r s i m p l e e x i s t e n c e n o r

ity. T h e y d o n o t s t r u g g l e t o h o l d t h e t w o r e a l m s a p a r t , b u t

t r a n s c e n d e n c e ; it is a p a r a e x i s t e n c e or a p a r a t r a n s c e n -

r a t h e r a l l o w the t w o r e a l m s t o i m p l i c a t e e a c h o t h e r . T h e y a r e

d e n c e t h a t d w e l l s beside t h e t h i n g (in all t h e senses o f

themselves the erosion of the distance that w o u l d properly

t h e prefix ' p a r a - ' ) , so close t h a t it almost m e r g e s w i t h

d i s t i n g u i s h t h e real f r o m t h e i m a g e . T h e y a r e n o t p o s s e s s e d b y

it, g i v i n g it a h a l o . It is n o t t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e t h i n g

" a n o t h e r m e " but instead are neutral with regard to identity

a n d y e t it is n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e t h i n g (it is none-

b e c a u s e a s s u m i n g one's n o t - o t h e r w i s e n e s s m e a n s a s s u m i n g t h a t

other).

w h i c h d o e s n o t refer b a c k t o a self, a n " I , " t h a t o n e w o u l d truly be. C h a r a c t e r actors are at ease w i t h their m a n n e r of

[È c o m e se la f o r m a , la c o n o s c i b i l i t à , la fattezza di

b e i n g . I n this w a y , t h e c h a r a c t e r a c t o r r e m a i n s r i g o r o u s l y u n i -

ogni ente si staccasse da esso, n o n c o m e un'altra cosa,

dentifiable (and n o t simply buried in the credits at the e n d of

m a c o m e uWintentio, u n a n g e l o , u n ' i m m a g i n e . I l m o d o

t h e f i l m , since t o w h o m w o u l d t h i s o r t h a t p r o p e r n a m e refer,

di essere di q u e s t a intentio n o n è u n a s e m p l i c e esistenza

anyway)? Unlike star presence, character acting " s h o w s " a

né u n a t r a s c e n d e n z a : è u n a p a r a e s i s t e n z a o u n a

nonparticular presence: a dead presence that seems to belong

p a r a t r a s c e n d e n z a , c h e d i m o r a a fianco alla c o s a (in

t o n o p a r t i c u l a r film i t h a p p e n s t o t u r n u p in.

t u t t i i sensi della p r e p o s i z i o n e para), c o s i a fianco da

I n t h e s p a c e o f t h e " t y p e , " t h e h a b i t u a l , or, a s B l a n c h o t

could say, the- "everyday," the definitive is engulfed and lost

either gravitate toward the h e r o , or w h o , a c t i n g as o n e , t h e m -

a n d , even m o r e d i s a s t r o u s , the unity of space is s h a t t e r e d , since

selves constitute a p o w e r ) . C h a r a c t e r a c t i n g is t h e p o w e r l e s s

these " t y p e s " c o m m u n i c a t e with each other w i t h o u t forming

possibility ol d i s s o l u t i o n , of n e i t h e r / n o r , of a n o n y m i t y , t h a t

an o r g a n i c c o m m u n i t y or a unicity. T h e y " f o r m " a m o t l e y .

t h r e a t e n s all

T h a t is, t h e s e c h a r a c t e r s d o n o t c o m e t o g e t h e r w i t h i n a unicity,

with Johnny

b u t r a t h e r e x i s t side b y side a s f r a g m e n t s . T h e s p a c e o f c h a r -

p l a i n e d t h a t h e w a s b e c o m i n g a c h a r a c t e r actor. J o h n n y q u i c k l y

a c t e r a c t o r s dissolves t h e u n i t y o f s p a c e , a n d t h e g l a m o r o u s

reassured him that that couldn't be true, because he h a d re-

p r e s e n c e of t h e G r e a t S t a r ( H u m p h r e y B o g a r t in Casablanca,

c e n t l y w o n a n A c a d e m y A w a r d for Best Actor.)

m e m b e r s of all classes. ( O n The Tonight Show Carson,

Gene

Hackman

once

anxiously com-

J o s e p h C o t t o n in The Third Man) is a l w a y s in d a n g e r of b e i n g

I n m i n o r r o l e s a n d a s bit p l a y e r s , c h a r a c t e r a c t o r s a l w a y s

d r o w n e d b y t h e s e m u l t i p l e a n d s i n g u l a r indifferences t o star-

a p p e a r as r e p r o d u c e d . W h e n they t u r n up on the screen o u r

d o m a n d even to " a c t i n g . " As in a Balthus street scene, each

g a z e a t t h e m i s p u r e l y superficial, u n b u r d e n e d o f t h e d r a m a o f

c h a r a c t e r a c t o r o c c u p i e s his o r h e r o w n scintillating a n d u n i q u e

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t h a t t h e g l a m o u r o f t h e s t a r e v o k e s . Character

s p a c e t h a t t h r e a t e n s t o dissolve t h e n a r r a t i v e i n t o a n infinite

actors do not challenge us to see. T h e y offer o u r g a z e t h a t

series o f i n d e t e r m i n a t e a n d c h a o t i c p o s s i b i l i t i e s . I n t h e i r w a y s ,

w h i c h r e m a i n s t o b e seen w h e n t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t o see a n d o u r

character actors c o m m u n i c a t e destruction: the radical destruc-

g a z e i s a l w a y s satisfied b y t h e m , b y t h e i r i n d e f i n i t e n e s s , b y

t i v e n e s s of a n o n c o l l e c t i v e , n o n i d e n t i f i a b l e c o m m u n i t y . T h e y

t h e i r soft u n c e r t a i n p r e s e n c e . T h e s e a c t o r s m a n a g e t o b e i d e n -

a r e e a c h t h e possibility of still appearing w h e n t h e r e is no l o n g e r

tified n e i t h e r w i t h t h e i r r e a l n a m e s n o r w i t h a n y n a m e t h e y

a n y o n e to be, no immanence a n d no identity to belong to.

m a y be g i v e n in a film. T h e y a r e t h e u n s t a b l e shifters in c i n -

Character-actors are employed by H o l l y w o o d to repres e n t t h e b u s i n e s s a n d h u m o f e v e r y d a y life. T h e y a r e p a i d t o represent w h a t happens when nothing happens: everydayness. Waiters and waitresses, cabdrivers, cooks, petty crooks, ordinary GIs, musicians, servants, shopkeepers, secretaries, bur e a u c r a t s , a n d stool pigeons: these roles c o m p r i s e a "petty b o u r g e o i s i e " i n t h e H o l l y w o o d social e c o n o m y . N e i t h e r e x t r a s n o r c o s t a r s , t h e c h a r a c t e r a c t o r i s forever " b e t w e e n " t h e s e t w o poles. T h e y are n o t p a r t of a m o b , a theater a u d i e n c e , a street c r o w d ; nor are they strewn, bloody a n d motionless, on a n y o f c o u n t l e s s m a k e - b e l i e v e battlefields. N e i t h e r a r e t h e y e v e r l e a d s , n o r h e r o e s . B e l o n g i n g t o n e i t h e r class t h e y a r e , i n effect, w i t h d r a w n f r o m all classes a n d t h e y a r e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of dissolution that threatens both the individual p o w e r of the h e r o or t h e l e a d e r and also t h e p o w e r of t h e collective ( w h o

ematic grammar. Always " h e " or "she," always "the one w h o w e j u s t s a w i n . . . , " a l w a y s t h e i r n e x t and p r e v i o u s r o l e s , t h e y a r e p u r e e c h o e s o f identity, m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f insignificance. W h e n w e see t h e m a g a i n o n t h e s c r e e n , i n yet a n o t h e r f i l m o r T V s h o w (for t h e y a r e a l w a y s a n d o n l y seen repeatedly, n e v e r for a first t i m e ) t h e y a r e seen precisely as s o m e o n e I r e c o g n i z e b u t h a d f o r g o t t e n e v e n e x i s t e d . But f r o m w h e r e d o I r e c o g n i z e t h e m ? I t i s difficult t o say b e c a u s e t h e y a r e n o t identified w i t h a n y o n e picture o r T V show. ( N o o n e goes t o the c i n e m a t o see a n A k i m Tamiroff o r a Q u e e n i e Smith f i l m . ) T h u s t h e y h a p p e n t o a p p e a r , here a n d t h e r e , n o w a n d t h e n , a s events o f r e - c o g n i t i o n , r e p e t i t i o n , a n d difference. Radically d e p r o p r i a t e d of identity (right in front of o u r eyes!), radically " i m a g e d , " radically s t e r e o t y p e d , they are just as radically " c a p a b l e " of their d e p r o p r i a t i o n . T h e y a r e " c a p a b l e " o f i m p r o p r i e t y , insignificance,

i n s u b s t a n t i a l i t y . They do not appropriate their q u a l i t i e s as

s t a l e d , the i ( v C M luston from the p e r s o n a l . I n the w o r k o f a r t ,

r a d i c a l l y idcntificatory of themselves. I n s t e a d , they a r c , in-

as in t h e c o r p s e ( w h e r e w h a t a p p e a r s insists u p o n t h e a b s e n c e

t h e m s e l v e s , t h e p u r e " t a k i n g - p l a c e " of t h o s e q u a l i t i e s : an a c -

a n d inaccessibility o f t h a t w h i c h i s r e p r e s e n t e d ) , this " o t h e r "

t o r = x, s o r t of. T h a t is t h e secret of t h e i r lightness a n d t h e i r

r e l a t i o n m a k e s itself o b s c u r e l y felt. I m p o r t a n t l y , t h i s " o t h e r "

a l w a y s familiar b u t i n s u b s t a n t i a l " l i f e . " W h i l e J a c k i e G l e a s o n ' s

r e l a t i o n is a r e l a t i o n to t h e same t h i n g , a r e l a t i o n w i t h t h a t

o b e s i t y identified h i m a n d m a r k e d b o t h his c o m i c a n d d r a -

shadow "behind" appearances that is nothing other than the

matic roles with an uncomfortable p a t h o s , in Sydney Green-

t h i n g itself. I n s h o r t , w e shall s h o w t h a t o n e a l w a y s h a s a

s t r e e t o b e s i t y is b o r n e superficially a n d s t e r e o t y p i c a l l y , like a

relation with a not-otherwiseness, or irreparability, anteced-

s i m p l e p l a y o f light a n d s h a d o w .

e n t t o all d e t e r m i n a t e r e l a t i o n s . B u t t h a t " o t h e r " r a p p o r t i s a r a p p o r t with no object. It is a r a p p o r t with nothing other t h a n t h e self i t s e l f — b u t o u t s i d e of, a n d e x t e r i o r t o , itself. A c c o r d i n g t o W i l l i a m R i c h a r d s o n (from w h o s e a d m i r a b l y

Object = x If The Coming Community is, as A g a m b e n s a y s , a

c l e a r s u m m a r y of t h e Kantbuch we will b o r r o w h e a v i l y in

c o m m e n t a r y on s e c t i o n 9 of Being and Time a n d on p r o p o s i -

w h a t follows) the key to Heidegger's study of the First Critique

tion

6.44

of

Wittgenstein's

Tractatus

34

Logico-Philosophicus,

i s his r e p e a t e d i n s i s t e n c e o n t h e f i n i t u d e o f h u m a n k n o w i n g .

3 8

it is a l s o , in o u r o p i n i o n , t h o r o u g h l y p r e c e d e n t e d by H e i d e g g e r ' s

T h e h u m a n knower does not create the being-to-be-known.

Kant and

the

T h a t w h i c h is k n o w n is always objective in character, is out-

a n a l y s i s o f w h a t h e c o n s i d e r s t o b e t h e " k e r n e l " o f t h e Cri-

side t h e k n o w e r , a n d i s n o t t h e k n o w e r . A s f i n i t e , h u m a n k n o w -

the

Problem

of Metaphysics

and

in

particular

In t h i s

i n g m u s t b e g i n i n i n t u i t i o n , s e n s a t i o n , r e c e p t i o n , affect, p a s -

analysis, Heidegger shows t h a t at the heart of objectivity there

sivity. T h e " p a s s i v e " side o f k n o w i n g i s o n t o l o g i c a l l y a n t e r i o r

is a n o n t h i n g , a n o n b e i n g , a n o n e m p i r i c a l a n d u n i n t e n d e d " m e -

a n d p r i m a r y . B u t for K a n t , a s i s well k n o w n , r e c e p t i v i t y i s n o t

d i u m , " or, as K a n t calls it, an O b j e c t = x w h e r e t h e " p o w e r "

sufficient for k n o w l e d g e . T h e i m m e d i a t e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a sin-

of t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l

becomes

g u l a r m u s t b e d e t e r m i n e d t o b e such o r s u c h . A s d e t e r m i n e d ,

e q u i v o c a l : e q u a l l y active a n d p a s s i v e , o r p e r h a p s p u r e l y p a s -

t h e i m m e d i a t e l y i n t u i t e d is t h e n r e - p r e s e n t e d as w h a t it is in

tique

of Pure Reason,

the Transcendental

imagination

Schema.

(Einbildungskraft)

3 5

T h e O b j e c t = x, we shall see, is t h e essentially o b j e c -

g e n e r a l , in light of universality. T h i s side of k n o w i n g is t h o u g h t .

tive o r e x t e r i o r c h a r a c t e r o f w h a t i s m o s t i n t i m a t e o r interior.

It is active a n d " s p o n t a n e o u s . " F r o m the r a w data of intuition

It is an always anterior presentation t h a t transforms interior-

the contents of universality are constructed a n d re-presented.

ity i n t o , a s B l a n c h o t w o u l d say, " a n e x t e r i o r f o r c e t h a t w e

T h o u g h t , in g e n e r a l , as R i c h a r d s o n p u t s it, is a p r e s e n t a t i o n

sionate.

3 6

W e shall see t h a t every e m p i r i c a l i n t u -

(in c o n c e p t s ) of a p r e s e n t a t i o n (an i n t u i t i o n ) , a n d it is e v e n

i t i o n (every " a p p e a r a n c e " ) i s h a u n t e d b y a n a s p e c t r a l p r e s e n -

m o r e f i n i t e t h a n i n t u i t i o n , since i t i s o n t o l o g i c a l l y d e p e n d e n t

t a t i o n , or pure i m a g e , t h a t realizes the possibility of the a b s e n c e

o n " r a w d a t a . " O n the o t h e r h a n d , t h o u g h t i s " m o r e " p r e s e n -

of t h e object, b u t t h a t r e m a i n s nevertheless a r a p p o r t w i t h t h e

t a t i v e t h a n i n t u i t i o n since i t p r o v i d e s a u n i t y t h a t h o l d s g o o d

same object. This other relation is n o n p e r s o n a l or even, better

for m o r e t h a n o n e p a r t i c u l a r . H u m a n k n o w i n g i s t h e i n t i m a c y

submit to passively."

37

A < i A M ii i ii \ M 11 i 11 I i' 11 i i I I ( A I N E U T E R of t h e s e p r o f o u n d l y diverse s l o p e s : passive and m u l t i p l e intu-

i'.ni stand is I he same t h i n g as the t h i n g t h a t a p p e a r s . It is t h e

i t i o n , a n d active a n d unifying t h o u g h t . K a n t ' s task i s t o m a k e

s a m e t h i n g a s ihe object: " [ T ] h e thing-in-itself i s n o t a n o t h e r

clear h o w t h e y c a n p o s s i b l y b e s y n t h e s i z e d . W e notice s t r a i g h t -

object but a n o t h e r a s p e c t (rcspectus) of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h

a w a y t h a t , a l t h o u g h d i v e r s e , t h e t w o sides h a v e s o m e t h i n g i n

r e g a r d to the same object."

c o m m o n : each presents, and we k n o w that in Kant the p o w e r

a s t h e o b j e c t . I n s o f a r a s t h e Ent-stand s t a n d s o u t f r o m G o d , i t

of presentation in general belongs to the transcendental imagi-

appears as o b - p o s e d to t h e finite k n o w e r . I n d e e d , i n s o f a r as

nation as it functions in the mystery of schematizing.

t h e t h i n g a p p e a r s a t all, i t insists u p o n a n essential n o n k n o w l -

41

T h e Ent-stand is t h e s a m e essent

But w h a t c a n b e k n o w n ? K a n t ' s a n s w e r i s f a m o u s . W e

e d g e (or " h i d d e n n e s s " a s H e i d e g g e r prefers t o t h i n k o f it). F o r

k n o w o n l y the b e i n g - t h a t - a p p e a r s , a n ob-ject o b - p o s e d (Gegen-

t h e Ent-stand is a l t o g e t h e r ( a n d n o t j u s t p a r t i a l l y ) i n a c c e s s i b l e

stand) t o a k n o w e r . W e k n o w a p p e a r a n c e s a n d , crucially, a n

t o h u m a n k n o w i n g . O u r r e l a t i o n t o t h e Ent-stand i s n o t a

a p p e a r a n c e " c a n b e n o t h i n g b y itself, o u t s i d e o u r m o d e o f

r e l a t i o n o f k n o w l e d g e a t all. Finite k n o w i n g — b e g i n n i n g f r o m

representation."

3 9

However, k n o w i n g is not ontically creative.

f i n i t u d e , i n t u i t i o n , receptivity, p a s s i v i t y — d o e s n o t give u s a c -

We do n o t create t h a t which we know. There is an essential

cess t o t h i n g s - i n - t h e m s e l v e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h a t w h i c h i s k n o w n

d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e k n o w e r a n d t h e k n o w n b e c a u s e t h e finite

(the o b j e c t , t h e t h i n g t h a t a p p e a r s ) i s n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e

k n o w e r does not create the being-to-be-known. A h u m a n

Ent-stand. K a n t , of c o u r s e , in t h e First Critique, is c o n c e r n e d

k n o w e r i s n o t G o d . D i s t i n c t f r o m finite k n o w i n g , a n infinite

less w i t h b e i n g s p e r s e t h a n w i t h o u r w a y o f k n o w i n g t h e m a s

k n o w e r d o e s n o t k n o w o b j e c t s a t all. G o d k n o w s t h e Ent-

o b j e c t s . H e c o n c e r n s himself w i t h i n v e s t i g a t i n g a n d defining

stand, t h e e-ject (i.e., t h e t h i n g i n s o f a r as it t a k e s its o r i g i n in

the a priori structures by which and t h r o u g h which that which

God).

4 0

G o d d o e s n o t k n o w t h i n g s - t h a t - a p p e a r (i.e., objects)

s t a n d s o u t from G o d a p p e a r s a n d i s accessible t o h u m a n k n o w -

b u t t h i n g s as t h e y a r e , as s u c h , i n - t h e m s e l v e s (an sich). Infinite

i n g a s o b j e c t i v e a n d o b - p o s e d . S u c h k n o w i n g w o u l d t h e n si-

k n o w i n g is therefore not so much better than h u m a n k n o w -

m u l t a n e o u s l y be a b a r r i n g of access to t h e Ent-stand. He is

i n g ( t h a n p e r s p e c t i v i s m ) as it is p r o f o u n d l y different, b e c a u s e

n o t s o m u c h c o n c e r n e d w i t h m u t u a l p r e s e n c e a n d self-pres-

n o o b j e c t s a r e e v e n given t o G o d t o b e k n o w n . T o p u t i t differ-

e n c e , o r " o n t i c c o m p o r t m e n t " (the p r e s e n c e o f o b j e c t s t o s u b -

ently, u n l i k e t h e finite k n o w e r , G o d d o e s n o t h a v e t o a n t i c i -

jects), a s h e i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h a t a n t e r i o r s t r u c t u r e t h a t m a k e s

p a t e a b e i n g - t o - b e - k n o w n , since G o d is its o r i g i n . Finite k n o w -

t h e c o m p o r t m e n t p o s s i b l e , b e c a u s e , a s h e s a y s , "[i]n t h e w o r l d

i n g , i n c o n t r a s t , i s essentially t e m p o r a l , a n t i c i p a t o r y , a h e a d -

o f s e n s e , h o w e v e r d e e p l y w e e n q u i r e i n t o its o b j e c t s , w e h a v e

of-itself.

to do with nothing but appearances."

The

Ent-stand is p r o f o u n d l y i n a c c e s s i b l e to finite

4 2

k n o w i n g . If t h e Ent-stand is " b e h i n d " a p p e a r a n c e s t h i s d o e s

B y K a n t ' s a c c o u n t , t h e n , h u m a n k n o w i n g will c o n s t i t u t e

n o t m e a n t h a t i t dimly, c o n t i n u a l l y , o b l i q u e l y , a n d d i s t o r t e d l y

only t h a t w h i c h m a k e s b e i n g s i n t o o b j e c t s a n d a l l o w s u s e x p e -

faces t h e i n f e r i o r h u m a n k n o w e r . It is not knowable at all.

r i e n c e t h e m s u c h t h a t t h a t w h i c h s o c o n s t i t u t e s o b j e c t s will

( F o r t h e o n t o l o g y of Sein und Zeit, H e i d e g g e r says it is c o n -

a l s o c o n s t i t u t e e x p e r i e n c e . O u r e n c o u n t e r w i t h b e i n g s will n o t

c e a l e d [verdeckt].) T h e Ent-stand is s i m p l y n o t an o b j e c t a n d

c r e a t e b e i n g s n o r seize t h e m a s G o d d o e s a n d k n o w t h e m a s

hence is not available to be k n o w n . Importantly, however, the

t h e y a r e i n - t h e m s e l v e s . A n t e r i o r (a p r i o r i ) access is a " f a s h -

things-as-objects.

ol unity thai g u i d e s the c o n c e p t . As p u r e , t h e r u l e s c o n s t i t u t e

Anterior contact will c o m b i n e the I w o s i d e s of k n o w i n g , intu-

thai w h i c h they rule. They " d i s a p p e a r " i n t o t h a t w h i c h t h e y

i t i o n a n d t h o u g h t , i n t o a unity. A n d since, for K a n t , this is a

rule a n d a r e n o t h i n g o u t s i d e their w o r k . T h e y i n s c r i b e t h e m -

" p o w e r " o f t h e k n o w e r , i t will c o m e from t h e k n o w e r a n d

selves in a s o m c t h i n g - t o - b e - r u l e d (i.e., a s o m e t h i n g - t o - b e - u n i -

thus must simultaneously fashion, m a k e , institute, and expe-

fied). T h e t o t a l i t y of t h e s e r u l e s is t h e c a t e g o r i e s . A c a t e g o r y is

r i e n c e itself. In s h o r t , t h a t w h i c h 06-jectifies a l s o swb-jectifies.

a w a y a r u l e r u l e s , a n d t h e U n d e r s t a n d i n g is s i m p l y t h e c l o s e d

N e i t h e r i n t u i t i o n a l o n e n o r t h o u g h t a l o n e c a n d o this a n d c l a i m

t o t a l i t y o f t h e w a y s b y w h i c h intuitive d a t a c a n b e unified,

to be the "foundation." Each, taken independently, is always

i n s c r i b e d , r u l e d . T h e Vet-stand is a " p o w e r of r u l e s " or a p o w e r

p r i o r to a n y e x p e r i e n c e (i.e., is pure).

o f w a y s o r m a n n e r s o f p r e s e n t a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , since e v e r y

ioning," a

"making," an

"instituting" oi

P r i o r t o all e x p e r i e n c e , t h e i m m e d i a t e , r e c e p t i v e e n c o u n -

a c t of k n o w i n g i m p l i e s a c o n s c i o u s n e s s , t h e pure c o n c e p t is

t e r w i t h a s i n g u l a r r e s u l t s in t w o t y p e s of p r e s e n t a t i o n s : s p a c e

t h e c o n s c i o u s n e s s of a u n i t y a n d i m p l i e s a pure s e l f - c o n s c i o u s -

and time. Space and time are intuited but are n o t objects. They

n e s s . T h u s , for K a n t , all c o n c e p t u a l unities h a v e t h e c h a r a c t e r

a r e n o t explicitly a p p r e h e n d e d . Clearly, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t w h i c h

of an "I think." This "I t h i n k " is a thinking a n d n o t simply an

p u r e i n t u i t i o n i n t u i t s m u s t c o m e f r o m i n t u i t i o n itself. N o n -

a c t ; it is a " p o w e r "

objects, space a n d time (outer and inner) are not k n o w a b l e .

ception. T h a t is, t r a n s c e n d e n t a l a p p e r c e p t i o n i s n o t a n a c t t h a t

I n t u i t i n g t h e m , i n t u i t i o n i s h e n c e n o t affected b y a n y o b j e c t . I t

c o m e s a n d g o e s b u t a potentia t h a t r e m a i n s in r e s e r v e e v e n as

is affected by t h a t w h i c h it gives to itself. S o m e t h i n g is i n t u -

it w o r k s . It is a stable unity w i t h o u t which there w o u l d be no

i t e d , b u t n o t a n o b j e c t . I t i s n o t n o t h i n g a t all, b u t n e i t h e r i s i t

k n o w l e d g e , for t h e r e w o u l d b e n o c o m m o n p o i n t t o serve for

a n y t h i n g t h e m a t i c . H e i d e g g e r s a y s s i m p l y t h a t i n its p u r e p a s -

multiple data. T h u s the transcendental apperception is the

sivity, i n t u i t i o n i n t u i t s itself. T h a t i s , i n t u i t i o n is t h a t w h i c h it

g r o u n d of the possibility of the categories.

(a potentia) he calls transcendental apper-

i n t u i t s . It gives itself t h a t w h i c h it is a b l e to i n t u i t . S p a c e a n d

N o w , since t h e p r o p e r l y K a n t i a n e x p e r i e n c e m u s t b e made,

time are n o t " o u t s i d e " intuition. Intuition is always already

there m u s t be a p o w e r that unites pure intuition a n d p u r e

i n t h a t w h i c h i t receives. S p a c e a n d t i m e , i n s h o r t , a r e p u r e

t h o u g h t s u c h t h a t a k n o w e r can e x p e r i e n c e an o b j e c t . Since

images.

b o t h i n t u i t i o n a n d t h o u g h t present, H e i d e g g e r will l o o k for

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , p u r e t h o u g h t , p r i o r t o all e x p e r i e n c e ,

t h e i r r o o t i n w h a t t h e y s h a r e a n d , a s w a s s a i d earlier, t h e fac-

is the discerning of a unity t h a t m o r e t h a n one individual pos-

ulty of p r e s e n t a t i o n in g e n e r a l is t h e i m a g i n a t i o n . Einbildungs-

sesses in c o m m o n : a c o n c e p t . But p u r e c o n c e p t s (causality,

kraft is precisely and only t h e a b i l i t y to " f a s h i o n , " " i m a g e , "

e.g.) h a v e n o e m p i r i c a l c o n t e n t ( w h i c h led H u m e , o f c o u r s e ,

" i n s t i t u t e , " " e s t a b l i s h , " " s e t u p , " e t c . T h i s Kraft i s n o t a n

t o d e n y t h e i r r e a l i t y ) . F o r K a n t , t h e p u r e c o n c e p t (or " n o -

established fact b u t a c o n t i n u a l p r o c e s s — t h e process of sharing

t i o n " ) is s i m p l y a f u n c t i o n of unification itself. T h e " c o n t e n t s "

that

o f p u r e c o n c e p t s a r e " r u l e s " (i.e., n o t e m p i r i c a l i n t u i t i o n s ) .

T h e imagination integrates the r a w data of pure intuition w i t h

T h e s e r u l e s a r e n o t a p r o d u c t o f reflection b u t a r e t h e v e r y

t h e s y n t h e s e s o f c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . T h i s p r o c e s s i s a n activity

w o r k i n g o f reflection. T h e r u l e i s a n a n t e c e d e n t p r e s e n t a t i o n

called schematizing, a n d it is an activity t h a t is at o n c e sensible

which

pure

intuition

and pure

thought

have

in

common.

a n d i n t e l l e c t u a l ; n is a fusing nl s e n s a t i o n with i n t e l l e c t i o n . By-

be Slire, One Ol these possibilities has been a c t u a l i z e d

m e a n s o f t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l (or i m a g i n a r y ) s c h e m a , the t h i n g

by the h o u s e dial I see, b u t it need n o t h a v e been s o .

4 6

i s a b l e t o a p p e a r a s a n o b j e c t a n d b e e x p e r i e n c e d a s w h a t i t is. W i t h R i c h a r d s o n , w e m u s t e m p h a s i z e t h e " c a n " h e r e , for

It is K a n t ' s f a m o u s

it i n d i c a t e s a potentia a n d an activity by w h i c h a t h i n g is able third thing which is h o m o g e n o u s on the one h a n d with

t o a p p e a r a s w h a t i t i s (i.e., t o " r e v e a l itself," i n H e i d e g g e r i a n

the category, and on the other h a n d with appearance,

l a n g u a g e ) . I m p o r t a n t l y for R i c h a r d s o n , K a n t , H e i d e g g e r , a n d

and which makes the application of the former to the

A g a m b e n , t h i s p r e - s c r i p t i o n or " r u l e - f o r - a - h o u s e " is n o t a d e -

latter possible. This mediating representation m u s t be

t e r m i n a t e c a t a l o g of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r o p e r to a h o u s e . It is, in

p u r e , t h a t is, v o i d o f all e m p i r i c a l c o n t e n t , a n d y e t a t

Richardson's words, a

t h e s a m e t i m e w h i l e it m u s t in o n e r e s p e c t be intellec-

ity of w h a t is m e a n t by s u c h a t h i n g as ' h o u s e ' " ( e m p h a s i s

tual, it m u s t in a n o t h e r be sensible. S u c h a r e p r e s e n t a -

mine).

tion

is

the

43

transcendental schema.

4 7

or " p r e s c r i b e s " a n o n t h e m a t i c view, or, as H e i d e g g e r calls it, a

T h i s " v i e w " b y w h i c h a t h i n g can a p p e a r a s w h a t i t i s

c a l l e d is, in A g a m b e n ' s a n a l y s i s , " p u r e l y l i n g u i s t i c " : "[T]he name,

With regard to empirical concepts, the schema " p r o d u c e s "

"full s k e t c h [Auszeichen] of the total-

insofar as

it

names

a

thing,

is

nothing

insofar as it is named by the name [il nome, una cosa,

e non altro

but

the

thing,

in quanto nomina

che la cosa in quanto e nominata dal

4i

such that any particular can appear as w h a t

nome]." F u r t h e r m o r e , R i c h a r d s o n a d d s , " t h e view o f w h i c h

it is w i t h o u t being confined to any of the actual particularities

we are speaking here is as such neither the immediate (empiri-

o f its a p p e a r a n c e . A g a m b e n , q u i t e a p p r o p r i a t e l y , calls t h i s a n

cal) i n t u i t i o n of an a c t u a l s i n g u l a r o b j e c t (for it c o n n o t e s a

44

schema-image,

"example."

4 5

We can hardly do better than William Richard-

son's explanation of h o w the schema-image works:

g e n u i n e p l u r a l i t y ) , n o r a v i e w of t h e c o n c e p t itself in its unity. T h e view we are speaking of is not thematized at a l l . "

4 9

T h a t i s t o say, i n t h e l a n g u a g e o f A g a m b e n : A c r o s s t h e street is a h o u s e . I k n o w it to be a h o u s e , for i t i s p r e s e n t e d t o m e b y a n a c t o f k n o w l e d g e . B y

N e i t h e r p a r t i c u l a r n o r u n i v e r s a l , t h e e x a m p l e i s a sin-

r e a s o n o f this p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e h o u s e offers m e a v i e w

g u l a r o b j e c t t h a t p r e s e n t s itself as s u c h , t h a t shows its

o f itself a s a n i n d i v i d u a l e x i s t i n g o b j e c t e n c o u n t e r e d

s i n g u l a r i t y . . . . E x e m p l a r y is w h a t is n o t defined by

i n m y e x p e r i e n c e , b u t m o r e t h a n t h a t , i t offers a v i e w

a n y property, except by being called. N o t being red,

o f w h a t a h o u s e ( a n y h o u s e ) l o o k s like. T h i s d o e s n o t

b u t being-called-red; n o t b e i n g J a c o b

m e a n , of course, that the house has no individuality,

J a c o b defines t h e e x a m p l e . H e n c e its a m b i g u i t y , j u s t

but

being-called-

b u t o n l y t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o its o w n i n d i v i d u a l i t y t h e

w h e n o n e h a s d e c i d e d t o t a k e i t really seriously.

h o u s e as p r e s e n t e d offers a v i e w of w h a t a h o u s e can l o o k like, sc. t h e " h o w " o f a n y h o u s e a t all. I t o p e n s

[Né particolare né universale, l'esempio é un oggetto

up for me a s p h e r e [Umkreis] of p o s s i b l e h o u s e s . To

s i n g o l a r e c h e , per cosi d i r e , si dà a v e d e r e c o m e t a l e ,

1

Ad A M H I N

AND

I 11 I

I' i i I I l l (

At

NEUTER

monstra la sua sua singolarità.... Esemplare è ciò che

very scheme < >l the S( hema i m a g e a n d as t h e s c h e m a t a a r e sev-

n o n è definito da a l c u n a p r o p r i e t à , t r a n n e l'esser-detto.

e r a l , each is already temporalized. T h u s t h e s c h e m a t a " d e t e r -

N o n l'esser-rosso, m a l ' e s s e r - d e t t o - r o s s o ; n o n l'esser-

m i n e time" (or, a r t i c u l a t e it) and t i m e in-forms t h a t w h i c h it is

J a k o b , m a P e s s e r - t i e t t o - J a k o b definisce l ' e s e m p i o . D i

a r t i c u l a t e d by. T i m e , a s unified, " m a k e s p o s s i b l e " t h a t w h i c h

q u i la s u a a m b i g u i t à , n o n a p p e n a si decida di p r e n d e r l o

a r t i c u l a t e s it a n d t i m e is o n l y as a r t i c u l a t e d (i.e., fused w i t h

v e r a m e n t e sul s e r i o . ]

50

categories such that ontological predicates can be applied to a n y object w h a t e v e r ) . T h a t i s t o say, q u i t e obviously, t h a t t h i n k -

I n s h o r t , t h e K a n t i a n s c h e m a - i m a g e defines t h e " w h a t e v e r -

ing in t e r m s of form a n d content is i n a d e q u a t e to c a p t u r e this

i s - c a l l e d n e s s " t h a t A g a m b e n e x p l o i t s so i n g e n i o u s l y in his La

c o n u n d r u m o f activity a n d passivity. (But i n t h i s w a y w e r e a c h

comunità che viene. B u t we m u s t go f u r t h e r still a n d r e t u r n to

a n o t h e r a s p e c t o f A g a m b e n ' s a n a l y s i s t h a t , i n t h e e n d , will

Heidegger's

b r i n g h i m close t o B l a n c h o t ' s n o t i o n o f t h e i m a g e , a n d o f l a

Kantbuch.

By w a y of the schema, the unity of the empirical concept (the w o r d ) is referred to t h e i n t u i t e d p l u r a l i t y of possibilities it

communauté inavouable insofar as e a c h p r e d i c a t e s his a n a l y sis on a general w e a k e n i n g of m u t u a l p r e s e n c e s . )

unifies w i t h o u t , h o w e v e r , b e i n g r e s t r i c t e d t o a n y o n e o r a n y

N o w , if the transcendental schemata m a k e possible the

set of t h e m . In c o n t r a s t to t h i s , pure i n t u i t i o n — t i m e — i s al-

application of ontological categories to "any being whatever,"

ready unified. It is i n s t e a d t h e p u r e c o n c e p t s (the c a t e g o r i e s )

then we m u s t look into the ontological status of this " w h a t -

that are many. T h e schematism of the categories must, there-

ever," for it is precisely t h e o n t o l o g i c a l l y known. In s h o r t , what

fore, r e q u i r e special k i n d s of s c h e m a t a or s c h e m a t a of a c h a r -

is an o b j e c t in general}

a c t e r different f r o m t h o s e o f e m p i r i c a l i n t u i t i o n . A s t h e p u r e

K a n t ' s a n s w e r i s s i m p l e a n d d i s a r m i n g . I t isn't a n y t h i n g :

i n t u i t i o n of t i m e is t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of any o b j e c t , t h e s c h e m a t a m u s t unite the categories t o time s o t h a t o n t o l o g i c a l p r e d i -

N o w we are in a position to determine m o r e ad-

c a t e s m a y be a p p l i c a b l e to o b j e c t s in general. T h a t is, t h e p r o -

e q u a t e l y o u r c o n c e p t of an object in g e n e r a l . All o u r

f o u n d u n i t y o f t i m e m u s t b e v u l n e r a b l e t o v a r i o u s modes

representations have, as representations, their object,

( " w a y s " ) of p r e s e n t a t i o n w h i l e r e m a i n i n g one t i m e (for, " a l l

a n d can in turn b e c o m e objects of o t h e r representa-

times are one time"). Richardson reminds us t h a t this is the

t i o n s . A p p e a r a n c e s a r e t h e sole o b j e c t s w h i c h c a n b e

m o s t difficult a n d a m b i g u o u s a s p e c t o f H e i d e g g e r ' s e n t i r e

given to us immediately, a n d t h a t in t h e m which re-

a n a l y s i s of t h e Critique of Pure Reason. D o e s he w a n t to say

lates i m m e d i a t e l y t o t h e o b j e c t i s c a l l e d i n t u i t i o n . B u t

both t h a t t i m e i s t h e r o o t o f t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l i m a g i n a t i o n

these appearances are not things-in-themselves; they

a n d that the transcendental imagination is the r o o t of time?

are only representations, which in turn have their o b -

R i c h a r d s o n e x p l a i n s it as f o l l o w s : since t i m e is a l r e a d y u n i -

j e c t — a n o b j e c t w h i c h c a n n o t itself b e i n t u i t e d b y u s ,

f i e d , t h e s c h e m a t a (the " p o w e r " t o unify) h a v e n o t h i n g t o unify.

a n d w h i c h may, therefore, be n a m e d the non-empiri-

B u t as t i m e is already unified, it is a l w a y s a l r e a d y s c h e m a t i z e d ,

c a l , t h a t is, t r a n s c e n d e n t a l o b j e c t = x.

or is t h e (pure) i m a g e of a n y s c h e m a w h a t s o e v e r . T i m e is t h e

T h e p u r e c o n c e p t o f this t r a n s c e n d e n t a l o b j e c t ,

t\

which

in

reality

throughout

till

our

knowledge

is

I

i

i\

IVI

I

\

I

IN

l\

IN

I

'

I

I

I

I

|-

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

;\

I

IN

I

I

I

I

I

'I

'

K

tion to the k n o w n will not be cognitive. It is not p r e s e n t . It is

al

ways one and the same, is w h a t a l o n e can confer u p o n

more t h a n present; m o r e p r e s e n t t h a n a n y p r e s e n t a t i o n . It is

all o u r e m p i r i c a l c o n c e p t s in g e n e r a l r e l a t i o n s to an

t h e sheer ' V a n a p p e a r " o f a n y a p p e a r a n c e w h a t e v e r . N o t a b -

o b j e c t , t h a t is, a n objective reality." ( L a t t e r e m p h a s i s mine)

s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g at all, n o r j u s t a n y t h i n g at all, it is the disjunction of something and nothing.

5 1

"This = x,"

K a n t says, "is

o n l y t h e c o n c e p t of a b s o l u t e p o s i t i o n , n o t itself a self-subsistH e i d e g g e r will say t h a t t h e m y s t e r i o u s object = x is a " s o m e thing of which we k n o w n o t h i n g . "

5 2

As an object in general,

ing object b u t only an idea of relation, to posit an object corresponding to the form of intuition."

5 5

Alien t o all s u b s t a n c e

t h e x is n o t a n y p a r t i c u l a r object a n d , like t h e Umkreis " h o u s e , "

(i.e., n o t " s e l f - s u b s i s t i n g " ) , t h e o b j e c t = x is fragility itself.

it is n o t d e t e r m i n a b l e . It is t h e Umkreis of a n y p o s s i b l e o b j e c t .

E m p t y of all c o n t e n t , t h e x is t h e sheer " t h a t t h e r e i s " (il y a, es

It is t h e s o - c a l l e d o b j e c t , or a n y o b j e c t p u r e l y i n s o f a r as it is

gibt) s o m e t h i n g r a t h e r t h a n n o t h i n g , just as Da-sein, or t h e

called an o b j e c t . It is w h a t all o b j e c t s s h a r e , b u t it is in-itself a

t r a n s c e n d e n t a l i m a g i n a t i o n (or, unified a p p e r c e p t i o n ) , is t h e

n o - t h i n g , n o n b e i n g , n o n o b j e c t . I t is, i n A g a m b e n ' s l a n g u a g e

s h e e r " t h a t t h e r e i s " s o m e o n e r a t h e r t h a n n o o n e . Infinitely

again, "the pure being-in-language of the non-linguistic." It is

fragile, t h e x is a r c h e - r e l a t i o n , a r c h e - o b l i g a t i o n t h a t t h e r e be

t h a t w h i c h , i n a n y o b j e c t , objectifies it, e n v i s i o n s i t a s s u c h , a s

s u c h a t h i n g as i m a g i n a t i o n ( f o r m i n g , p r e s e n t a t i o n ) itself, or

an object. T h e object-in-general is purely imaginary, because

a n y syn- itself. Similarly, Da-sein is t h e being of t h e " t h e r e , "

it is s c h e m a t i z e d p a r e x c e l l e n c e , yet it is t h a t w h i c h is n o t p r e -

or, t h e p u r e p o s i t i o n of t h e self. Da-sein is t h e being of t h e

s e n t e d i n a n y p r e s e n t a t i o n . I n effect, t o b o r r o w f r o m L y o t a r d :

arche-presentation "= x."

it is t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e u n p r e s e n t a b l e . H e i d e g g e r will call

T h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n , n e e d l e s s t o say, i s a m b i g u o u s . N o t h i n g ,

it a " p u r e h o r i z o n " within which any object can be rendered

or the N o t h i n g , is p r e s e n t e d . N o t h i n g is " b e y o n d " it, no t h i n g -

p r e s e n t - t o - u s . K a n t will say it is a " p u r e c o r r e l a t e " to t r a n -

in-itself arises g h o s t l i k e b e y o n d t h e objectively k n o w n . T h e x ,

s c e n d e n t a l a p p e r c e p t i o n i n s o f a r as it is a u n i t y w a i t i n g for

t h e s h e e r p r e s e n t a t i o n , i s s u s p e n d e d , d e l a y e d , r e t a r d e d , inter-

s o m e t h i n g t o unify, a like t h a t p r e c e d e s a n y t h i n g t o l i k e n . I n

rupted—coming but never arriving. T h e essential distance

t h a t sense it is more o b j e c t i v e t h a n a n y o b j e c t , m o r e b e i n g

between the knower and that which is the preeminently o n t o -

t h a n a n y b e i n g , s o t h a t H e i d e g g e r will b e a b l e t o r e c h r i s t e n i t

logically k n o w n e r o d e s i n such a w a y t h a t t h e t w o sides c a n n o t

as Being. In "Brief iiber d e n H u m a n i s m u s " he says (in my

b u t fuse t o g e t h e r .

o w n t r a n s l a t i o n , w h i c h I leave c r u d e l y literal i n o r d e r t o e m -

Blanchot and Nietzsche, of w h a t does not come back (into

p h a s i z e t h e p o i n t ) : " T h u s Being i s b e i n g - e r t h a n a n y b e i n g

a n y p r e s e n t ) . N o t h i n g definitive i s p r e s e n t e d . N o f i g u r e , n o

56

" P r e s e n t e d " i s t h e r e t u r n , w e c a n say, w i t h

Fur-

o u t l i n e , n o b o r d e r , n o t h i n g f r a m e d . W h a t " h a p p e n s " i s (only)

ther, a c c o r d i n g t o R i c h a r d s o n , H e i d e g g e r will identify t h e t r a n -

t h a t t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l i m a g i n a t i o n feels itself o b l i g e d t o (or

[ G l e i c h w o h l ist d a s Sein s e i e n d e r als jegliches s e i e n d e ] . "

5 3

54

s c e n d e n t a l i m a g i n a t i o n as his Da-sein.

T h e o b j e c t = x is n o t a b e i n g , n o t an o b j e c t , h e n c e its r e l a -

c o n s t r a i n e d t o ) present. T h a t is to say, it feels itself, a n d t h u s s u b m i t s to itself, as if it c a m e f r o m o u t s i d e itself—as if it was

is p r o f o u n d l y

Whatevsi does noi therefore m e a n only (in t h e w o r d s

t e m p o r a l , m o r e o v e r , i n t h e sense o f a n e x t r e m e t e n s ( e ) - i o n , o r

ol Alain Badiou) ' s u b t r a c t e d from t h e a u t h o r i t y of l a n -

a n t i c i p a t i o n . (We m u s t recall f r o m t h e p r e c e d i n g a n a l y s i s t h a t ,

g u a g e w i t h o u t a n y possible d e n o m i n a t i o n , i n d i s c e r n -

unlike God's knowing, h u m a n knowing is temporal.) The

i b l e ' ; i t m e a n s m o r e e x a c t l y t h a t w h i c h , h o l d i n g itself

"power"

in s i m p l e h o m o n y m y , in p u r e b e i n g - c a l l e d , is precisely

itself an exterior force. T h i s a u t o / h e t e r o a f f e c t i o n

of Einbildungskraft is h e r e fused w i t h an

essential

i m p o t e n c e . T h e o b j e c t = x s h a r e s w i t h t h e Entstand t h e c h a r -

a n d o n l y for t h i s r e a s o n u n n a m a b l e : t h e b e i n g - i n - l a n -

a c t e r i s t i c of u n k n o w a b i l i t y , b u t , as a p r e s e n t a t i o n in extremis,

guage of the non-linguistic.

i t t u r n s a w a y f r o m G o d b a c k t o w a r d o b j e c t s , b a c k t o w a r d its c u s t o m a r y p o v e r t y . T h e o b j e c t = x is t h e i r r e p a r a b l e c o n s i g n -

[Qualunque n o n significa q u i n d i s o l t a n t o (nelle p a r o l e

m e n t t o t h i n g s , t o o b j e c t s , t o p r o f a n i t y , b u t o n l y via a d e t o u r

d i B a d i o u ) : ' s o t t r a t t o a l l ' a u t o r i t à della l i n g u a , senza

t h r o u g h t h e N o t h i n g , t h r o u g h n o n b e i n g . A g a m b e n says, " [ T j h e

n o m i n a z i o n e p o s s i b l e , i n d i s c e r n i b l e ' ; esso significa, p i ù

h u m a n i s t h e o n e t h a t , b e i n g o p e n t o t h e n o n - t h i n g - l i k e , is, for

precisamente: ciò che, tenendosi in una semplice

this very reason, irreparably consigned to things [{Puomo},

o m o n i m i a , nel p u r o e s s e r - d e t t o , a p p u n t o e s o l t a n t o p e r

essendo aperto al non-cosale, e, unicamente per questo,

q u e s t o è i n n o m i n a b i l e : l ' e s s e r - n e l - l i n g u a g g i o del n o n -

c o n s e g n a t o i r r e p a r a b i l m e n t e alle c o s e ] . "

linguistico.]

5 7

58

We do not then, suddenly and unexpectedly, confront the thing-in-itself, t h e sacred t h i n g , t h e Entstand as it is d i r e c t l y

He m a k e s the immediate a d d e n d u m to Badiou in order to

offered f r o m o u t o f t h e M o s t Ineffable. T o t h e c o n t r a r y , w e

i n s u r e t h a t w e d o n o t t r y t o see i n this prestntation-in-extremis

suddenly and unexpectedly confront nothing, nonbeing, that

a n e g a t i v e p r e s e n t a t i o n , N e g a t i v e Being, or n e g a t i v e t h e o l o g y .

is

That

T h e o b j e c t = x is t h e very t u r n i n g a w a y f r o m t h e s a c r e d for it

w h i c h all t h a t is h a s in c o m m o n is n o - t h i n g . We c o n f r o n t a

is t h e p r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i n g s , of o b j e c t s (i.e., of t h a t w h i c h

l i m i t w i t h o u t ever c o n f r o n t i n g it, for t h e limit w a s n o t h i n g ,

is never p r e s e n t e d to G o d ) . If y o u like, t h e x " s h o w s " t h e

w a s a l w a y s a l r e a d y " i n " t h i n g s , e r a s e d i n its a p p r o a c h a n d

ungodliness of the world. It shows the irreparable profanity

s u s p e n d e d en deca du temps like a p a r a l y z e d a n d p a r a l y z i n g

o f t h e w o r l d . Via this p a r a l y z e d p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e w o r l d i s p r e -

force. For t h a t w h i c h is presented is the sheer " t h e r e , " a n d

s e n t e d precisely such as it is. A p p e a r a n c e s c o n c e a l (only t h e )

this p u r e " t h e r e " is the pure position of the K a n t i a n "subject"

nothing. No p r o p e r nature is revealed to us, no coming-from-

( w h i c h w e shall i n t e r r o g a t e i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r )

out-of-Ineffability is u n v e i l e d . In A g a r n b e n ' s l a n g u a g e a g a i n ,

o r t h e k n o w e r , t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l i m a g i n a t i o n , t h e Da-sein.

only the irreducible " t h u s n e s s " of things is revealed. T h o u g h t ,

to

say,

ourselves:

ourselves

as

the

no-thing

"itself."

I m p o r t a n t l y , for A g a r n b e n ' s e n t i r e e n t e r p r i s e since Lan-

t h e n , b e f o r e i t t h i n k s a n y t h i n g , i s a b l e t o t h i n k (or i s n o t a b l e

guage and Death, t h e ( w h a t e v e r ) o b j e c t = x is b o t h t h e p o i n t

n o t t o t h i n k ) p u r e p r o f a n i t y , o r p u r e o r d i n a r i n e s s , a s its only

o f s u b t r a c t i o n f r o m all l a n g u a g e , all identity, all p r o p r i e t y , a n d

extraontic thought.

a l s o t h e p o i n t o f i m m e r s i o n i n l a n g u a g e - i n - g e n e r a l or, s i m p l y , t h e s h e e r fact t h a t one speaks:

T h i s m e a n s t h e n t h a t (pure) t h o u g h t i s naïveté p a r excellence. T u r n i n g at o n c e to objects, it has always already forgotten

, 1 v , M 1)1 I . I

M

\ I

I I

1

I

I I I

I

l

M

I

I

I »

A I

IN fi

H

1 fi H

I

33

pure being-in-

Willi the expropriation ol .ill " c o n t e n t s , " all " l a t e n c y , " this

l a n g u a g e — i s a b a n d o n e d , u n d e s t i n e d , s c r u p u l o u s l y tbingisli.

pure relation is obs( urely felt. The w o r k of a r t , as L é v i n a s h a s

T h o u g h t is constrained to think nothing beyond objects. This

s h o w n , realizes such a d e t a c h m e n t f r o m c o n d i t i o n s . It realizes

i s its " e x t r e m e y o u t h " — t o h a v e a l w a y s a l r e a d y e v a c u a t e d it-

sheer a p p e a r a n c e . Radically u n s e i z a b l e , a r t realizes t h e e x t r e m e

self of all latency. T h o u g h t is o r i g i n a l l y p u r e l y e x p o s e d , p u r e l y

p o s s i b i l i t y of another r e l a t i o n t h a t A g a m b e n h i s t o r i c i z e s in

p r e s e n t e d , p u r e l y there, a n d it is " a b l e " to h o l d itself j u s t en

his La comunità che viene. H i s " c o m i n g " c o m m u n i t y is n o t h -

deçà du temps, or I'entretemps, p r i o r to its " w o r k " of figura-

i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e sheer, i m m a n e n t p o s s i b i l i t y o f b e i n g - i n - l a n -

tion. T h o u g h t , in short, before it is captured in the w o r l d ,

g u a g e i n s o f a r as l a n g u a g e offers n e u t r a l i t y , a n o n y m i t y , indif-

God. I r r e d u c i b l y lost among things, though)

" t h i n k s " t h e p l a c e of a r t , l'espace littéraire. It is " a b l e " to

ference w i t h r e g a r d t o identity. I t offers t h e s p e a k e r t h e " a b i l -

t h i n k , before t h e r e is a n y thing, " r e l a t i o n in g e n e r a l " in t h e

i t y " t o n o l o n g e r say " I , " j u s t a s B l a n c h o t h a s w r i t t e n .

61

p u r e " t h e r e , " or // y a. T h i s " a b i l i t y " is a passivity. It is a p u r e

O u r e r a , w r i t e s A g a m b e n , i s o n e i n w h i c h all r e a l i t y h a s

p a s s i o n . A p a s s i o n , h o w e v e r , t h a t is n e v e r p r e s e n t like a s t a t e -

been t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o its image. G l a m o r o u s a n d alienating, t h e

o f - m i n d . It is t h e p u r e finding-myself-there, or b e i n g - t h e - t h e r e .

spectacle h a s totalized itself a n d forever s e p a r a t e d h u m a n life

It c a n n o t n o t be-the-there (without purely a n d simply ceasing

from the possibility of a p r e s u p p o s e d c o m m o n G o o d . O u r

t o b e ) . T h a t i s t o say, for a p a r a l y z e d m o m e n t , p u r e l y e x p o s e d

" n a t u r e " — t h e fact t h a t w e s p e a k — h a s b e e n e x p r o p r i a t e d a n d

to all its possibilities (all its p r e d i c a t e s ) it is u n d e s t i n e d to a n y

commodified and nothing of God, nothing of the sacred, had

o n e o r a n y set o f t h e m . B u t this p a r a l y z e d m o m e n t d o e s n o t

b e e n r e v e a l e d i n t h i s " e x t r e m e l y nullifying u n v e i l i n g [ e s t r e m o

b e l o n g to a p a s t , a " w a s . " Da-sein, or t h e K a n t i a n " s u b j e c t , "

svelamento nullificante]."

is its there incessantly, w i t h o u t , h o w e v e r , b e i n g a b l e to b r i n g

pies its o w n " a u t o n o m o u s s p h e r e [sfera a u t o n o m a ] "

itself b e f o r e itself. It is, as H e i d e g g e r s a y s , " a h e a d of itself."

drillard's " h y p e r r e a l i t y " ) . T h e " w o r d " — t h e " p o w e r " t o reveal

62

In our era, communication occu6 3

(Bau-

In a c e r t a i n sense, we c o u l d say t h a t it is t h e very " w o r k "

a n y t h i n g w h a t s o e v e r — h a s a c q u i r e d its o w n materiality a n d h a s

o f w h a t e v e r b e i n g precisely t o u n w o r k a n d u n d e t e r m i n e itself

b e c o m e a c o m m o d i t y . L a n g u a g e , the M o s t C o m m o n , h a s b e e n

b y h o l d i n g itself i n " p e r f e c t h o m o n y m i t y . " A t least, A g a m b e n

t a k e n f r o m u s a n d h a s r e v e a l e d o n l y t h e n o t h i n g n e s s o f all

w o u l d h a v e u s t h i n k s o , a n d i n his o w n w a y h e r e l a t e s w h a t -

t h i n g s . Yet a h o p e a n d a n i n t e r v e n t i o n r e m a i n p o s s i b l e for u s .

ever beings, "tricksters or fakes, assistants or ' t o o n s [tricksters o

T o b e g i n w i t h , lived e x p e r i e n c e h a s l o n g since b e e n dis-

(italics a n d English in o r i g i -

t a n c e d i n a d v a n c e a n d h o l l o w e d o u t b y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . (It w a s

nal) t o t h e B l a n c h o t i a n writer, a s w e h a v e a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d i n

Walter Benjamin w h o noticed those tourists, standing with

o u r p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r s . W h e n " e x p r o p r i a t e d o f all identity, s o

their c a m e r a s in front of great w o r k s of art, preserving an

a s t o a p p r o p r i a t e b e l o n g i n g itself [ e s p r o p r i a t e d i t u t t e l e i d e n -

e x p e r i e n c e t h e y w o u l d n e v e r h a v e . ) T h i s m e a n s t h a t t h e Spec-

59

p e r d i g i o r n o , a i u t a n t i o toons]"

whatever

tacle (representation in general) is the p u r e form of separa-

b e i n g , like t h e writer, is s u b t r a c t e d f r o m all ( r e p r e s e n t a b l e )

t i o n : " [ W ] h e n t h e real w o r l d h a s b e e n t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a n

c o m m o n a l i t y , all identifiable c o m m u n i t y , a n d b e c o m e s radically

image a n d images become real, the practical p o w e r of h u m a n s

" c a p a b l e " of instability, fragility—that is, r e l a t i o n - i n - g e n e r a l .

is s e p a r a t e d f r o m itself a n d p r e s e n t e d as a w o r l d u n t o itself

tità, per appropriarsi dell'appartenenza s t e s s a ] , "

6 0

I

J 'I

I ( ) I

I K

[ d o v e il m o n d o reale si è t r a s f o r m a t o in u n ' i r n m a g i n e e le

s o n " loi US Snd hil quasi difference from Blanchot. M o r e " p o s i -

i m m a g i n i d i v e n t a n t o reali, la p o t e n z a pratica dell'uomo si dis-

t i v e l y " t h a n Blanchot, hi' says t h a t t h e c o m m u n i t y of t h o s e

t a c c a d a se stessa e si p r é s e n t a c o m e un m o n d o a

w h o have no c o m m o n , representable c o m m o n a l i t y is the re-

se]."

6 4

This

mondo a sé h a s b e e n c a p t u r e d a n d r e g u l a t e d by a c o m p e t i t i v e

t u r n o f n o n e x c l u s i o n . Its e t e r n a l r e t u r n .

mediacracy that n o w manipulates and controls the perception

In our era, then, it is no longer the sacred dead w h o reveal

a n d the m e m o r y of the community. H u m a n s , henceforth, are

c o m m u n i t y t o u s a s w e g a t h e r t o g e t h e r i n a single ( d e c o m -

s e p a r a t e d f r o m their M o s t C o m m o n — l a n g u a g e , Logos. F u r -

posing throng.

t h e r m o r e , A g a m b e n a r g u e s , this m a m m o t h , m a g n i f i c e n t e x -

in its i m a g e , its c o r p s e , in l a n g u a g e itself. E x p e r i e n c e is l o n g

p r o p r i a t i o n h a s e m p t i e d t h e w o r l d o f all beliefs, t r a d i t i o n s ,

since d e a d . T h e r e i s (only) (the) n o t h i n g left t o e x p e r i e n c e —

c o n t e n t s , latency, a n d s a c r e d n e s s a n d h a s r e p l a c e d t h e m w i t h

ourselves, in short. Only those " c a p a b l e " of such an experi-

p r o d u c t s . I t h a s r e v e a l e d t h e n o t h i n g n e s s o f all t h i n g s (i.e., i t

e n c e w i l l e n t e r A g a m b e n ' s c o m m u n i t y che viene u n h a r m e d .

h a s r e v e a l e d t h a t w h a t w a s " h i d d e n " i n all t h i n g s — " b e h i n d

T h e political task t h a t remains is destruction. T h e a p p e a r a n c e

a p p e a r a n c e s " — w a s o n l y t h e s u s c e p t i b i l i t y o f all t h i n g s t o be-

of t h e autonomy of t h e m e d i a t i z e d spectacle m u s t be d e s t r o y e d .

c o m i n g their o w n image, their o w n a p p e a r a n c e . W h a t w a s

L i k e t h e s a c r e d , a n d like t h e Sigetic V o i c e , t h e c o m m o d i t y /

" h i d d e n " w a s n o t s o m e essence, b u t s h e e r spectrality.)

spectacle m u s t be ushered to the grave: " [ T ] o link together

6 5

I t i s t h e r e a l itself t h a t n o w i n c e s s a n t l y d i e s —

T h a t which has been expropriated from h u m a n s n o w

image a n d body in a space where they can no longer be sepa-

comes back to them commodified, w o r k e d over a n d revalu-

r a t e d , a n d t h u s t o forge t h e w h a t e v e r b o d y , w h o s e physis i s

a t e d by t h e m e d i a because language is dead and has become

resemblance—this is the good that humanity must learn to

its own image. O u r linguistic " n a t u r e " c o m e s b a c k to us in-

wrest from commodities in their decline [compenetrare

v e r t e d : a s a r t , a s u n n a t u r a l , a s n o t - o u r s . I n its " w o r k " o f e m p -

i m m a g i n e e c o r p o i n u n o s p a z i o i n c u i essi n o n p o s s a n o essere

t y i n g o u t beliefs a n d t r a d i t i o n s , l a n g u a g e itself r e m a i n s n e v e r -

più separati e ottenere cosi in esso forgiato quel c o r p o

theless hidden a n d separated from us.

q u a l u n q u e , la cui physis è la s o m i g l i a n z a , q u e s t o è il b e n e c h e

For this very reason, A g a m b e n argues, it is n o w possible

l ' u m a n i t à d e v e s a p e r s t r a p p a r e alla m e r c e a l t r a m o n t o ] . "

6 6

for u s t o e x p e r i e n c e l a n g u a g e i t s e l f — n o t t h i s o r t h a t c o n t e n t o f l a n g u a g e , n o t t h i s o r t h a t t r u e o r false p r o p o s i t i o n , b u t t h e s h e e r fact t h a t " o n e s p e a k s . " L a n g u a g e — t h a t w h i c h u n v e i l s —

Politics

r e m a i n s i n o u r e r a , still veiled. W h a t r e m a i n s u n s e e n a n d u n -

F a r f r o m l a m e n t i n g t h e loss o f e x p e r i e n c e , t h e

e x p e r i e n c e d i s t h a t c o m m u n i c a t i o n , e m p t i e d o f all c o n t e n t ,

w e a k e n i n g o f m u t u a l p r e s e n c e a n d self p r e s e n c e , t h e e x p r o -

"is a b l e " t o c o m m u n i c a t e itself. T h e s i n k i n g i n t o n u l l i t y o f t h e

p r i a t i o n o f o u r linguistic n a t u r e , a n d o u r c o n s e q u e n t alien-

r e a l c o m m u n i c a t e s n o m e s s a g e , n o destiny, n o t h i n g s a c r e d . I t

a t i o n (adrift i n h y p e r s p a c e , B a u d r i l l a r d w o u l d s a y ) , A g a m b e n

c o m m u n i c a t e s o n l y t h e fragility o f b e i n g - i n - r e l a t i o n . T h i s

a s k s u s t o w e l c o m e it. W e m u s t w e l c o m e i t b e c a u s e t h i s a l i e n -

m e a n s t h a t i t c o m m u n i c a t e s obsessively, i n c e s s a n t l y , a n d e x -

ation alone can " r e s t o r e " us to ourselves, to ourselves insofar

clusively the impossibility of exclusion. T h i s is A g a m b e n ' s " l e s -

a s w e a r e originally e x p r o p r i a t e d o f l a n g u a g e a n d e x p e r i e n c e .

/ M i

n

M

ni

IN

A

IN

11

i 11 r

r i

M

i i i i /\ i

IN

I

I I

I

E

n

i -i /

B e i n g - e x p r o p r i a t e d is human being. That is to say, at the e n d

predil aii!|, ami ol vvliu h, a p a r t I r o m t h e s e , we c a n n o t

of t h e e r a of C a p i t a l a n d its magnificent c o n c e n t r a t i o n in t h e

form the least c o n c e p t i o n . H e n c e we a r e o b l i g e d to go

Spectacle, t h e being t h a t r e t u r n s a n d the c o m m u n i t y t h a t c o m e s

r o u n d this r e p r e s e n t a t i o n in a p e r p e t u a l circle, i n a s -

is the o n e paradoxically " c o n s t i t u t e d " or "instituted" by ex-

m u c h a s w e m u s t a l w a y s e m p l o y it, i n o r d e r t o f r a m e

p r o p r i a t i o n . It is t h e b e i n g w h o s e reality is p u r e l y linguistic

a n y j u d g m e n t r e s p e c t i n g it. A n d this i n c o n v e n i e n c e w e

a n d ( p a r a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l . T h i s b e i n g , this c o m m u n i t y , h a s n o

find it i m p o s s i b l e to rid ourselves of, b e c a u s e c o n s c i o u s -

b e i n g p r o p e r t o i t e x c e p t for its ( p a r a ) t r a n s c e n d e n t a l b o r d e r -

ness in itself is n o t so m u c h a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n g o v e r n -

i n g on all its p o s s i b i l i t i e s . S u c h a b e i n g is fragile, u n s t a b l e ( a n -

i n g a p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t as a f o r m of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n in

a r c h i c , as L e v i n a s w o u l d s a y ) — t h e pure possibility of any re-

general. . . .

6 7

lation whatever. It is a b e i n g c o n s t i t u t e d by e x p r o p r i a t i o n a n d also, simultaneously, by the impossibility of exclusion because

L i k e t h e o b j e c t = x, t h e s u b j e c t = x is i n c o n c e i v a b l e o u t -

i t i n c e s s a n t l y b o r d e r s o n all its possibilities. W i t h o u t d e s t i n y

side its p r e d i c a t i o n s . I t i s n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n its p r e d i c a t i o n s ,

a n d w i t h o u t essence, the c o m m u n i t y t h a t returns is o n e never

y e t it is n o t p u r e l y a n d s i m p l y its p r e d i c a t i o n s . T h e s u b j e c t = x

present in the first place. Presubjective in the p r o p e r sense,

is " l i k e " t h e o b j e c t = x to t h e e x t e n t of b e i n g l i k e n e s s itself,

this c o m m u n i t y is qualunque! Infinitely v u l n e r a b l e , d e p e n d e n t

(i.e., a l w a y s t h e S a m e , likeness or r e s e m b l a n c e is its physis). It

o n t h e s u p p l e m e n t , w e will h a v e b e e n offered, i n t h e e n d , t h e

is a pure resemblance resembling nothing, no thing, no object.

p o s s i b i l i t y t o a p p r o p r i a t e o u r e x p r o p r i a t i o n itself, b y " h o l d -

A m e r e x, this t r a n s c e n d e n t a l subject is n o t k n o w a b l e or

ing ourselves in simple h o m o n y m i t y . "

e x p e r i e n c e a b l e in itself. T h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l a p p e r c e p t i o n is a

I n o u r a n a l y s i s o f K a n t , w e h a v e seen t h a t t h e t r a n s c e n -

nothing that can grasp nothing. It is that which makes pos-

d e n t a l a p p e r c e p t i o n c a n n o t g r a s p a n o b j e c t . T h e sole " c o n -

sible e x p e r i e n c e , b u t i t itself i s s u b t r a c t e d f r o m a n y e x p e r i -

t e n t " of its k n o w i n g is a l w a y s t h e " s a m e , " t h e o b j e c t = x: "A

e n c e . W e m u s t n o t e K a n t ' s r e l u c t a n c e t o identify i t definitively.

something of which we can k n o w n o t h i n g , " Heidegger says.

It is, exactly, a c o n s c i o u s n e s s : I, H e , She, or It. A l w a y s t h e

Deprived of any actual object, transcendental apperception

S a m e , it has no identity. It is a l w a y s t h e S a m e x, t h e S a m e

can only " t h i n k " a pure " t h e r e " or a " p u r e position" that, in

nothing. T h a t which unites intuition a n d makes experience

fact, it itself is. D e p r i v e d of e v e n i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n t e n t (or i n t e l -

" m i n e " i s w i t h o u t a n y identifiable self. A t t h e h e a r t o f K a n t i a n

l e c t u a l i n t u i t i o n — s o m e t h i n g K a n t n e v e r a d m i t s i n t o his p h i -

jemeinigkeit, t h e n , i s a n i n e l i m i n a t a b l e s t r a n g e n e s s .

losophy), this "perfectly contentless representation," he says,

n e s s " i s a n i n t i m a c y e x t e r i o r t o myself. T h i s s t r a n g e r c a n n o t

"Mine-

b e e x c l u d e d , for " w e m u s t a l w a y s e m p l o y it, i n o r d e r t o f r a m e C a n n o t even be called a c o n c e p t i o n , b u t m e r e l y a c o n -

a n y j u d g m e n t r e s p e c t i n g i t . " T h e p u r e I is x, It: t o o w e a k to

s c i o u s n e s s w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e s all c o n c e p t i o n s . B y t h i s

g r a s p itself or k n o w itself in its own e x p e r i e n c e of itself. Its

I , o r It, w h o o r w h i c h t h i n k s , n o t h i n g m o r e i s r e p r e -

u n i t y i s p u r e l y thought, b u t n o t objectified, a n d h e n c e i t r e -

s e n t e d t h a n a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l subject of t h o u g h t = x,

m a i n s u n r e c o g n i z e d . I n f r a m i n g itself i t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y e l u d e s

which is cognized only by means of t h o u g h t s t h a t are

its o w n g r a s p . It is a p a r e n t h e s i s t h a t i n c l u d e s all b u t itself. As

e n f r a m e d , it is e m p t y oí itseli and is t h u s the p m e border or l i m i t b e t w e e n b o t h p u r e senselessness and s u p c r s e n s o r i t y , on t h e o n e h a n d , a n d c h a o t i c s e n s a t i o n , o n t h e other. I n this w a y ,

subjecl is nol a p u n - unity u m l y i n g itself. It is t h e e n u n c i a t o r .

71

T h a t w h i c h Kant described as subject = x n e e d e d to be s u p p l e m e n t e d a n d r e t h o u g h t a s the o n e w h o says " I . " K a n t ' s s u b j e c t

we reencounter the p a r a d o x of time that in-forms that which

= x, to be a subject, h a d to s p e a k (itself). B u t t h i s leaves us

a r t i c u l a t e s i t (the c a t e g o r i e s , e.g.) s u c h t h a t t h e r e i s n o t i m e

w i t h a q u e s t i o n : if it is n o t (yet) a s u b j e c t (until it e n u n c i a t e s

t h a t is n o t always already articulated a n d also no category

itself), w h a t o r w h o m d i d K a n t c a t c h a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l g l i m p s e

that is not always already temporalized.

of?

For Kant, the pure contentless "representation I," the

T h e p u r e " t h e r e " o f t r a n s c e n d e n t a l a p p e r c e p t i o n offers

Umkreis o r t h e " I t h i n k " t h a t a c c o m p a n i e s all r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

n o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t w o u l d m a k e i t mine, m y " I . " T h e p u r e

and makes them mine, remains unexaminable and is purely

b e i n g - t h e r e i s n o t a v a i l a b l e t o a n y subject, b u t t o a m e r e " t h e r e

a n d s i m p l y named a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l " s u b j e c t " — t h e p u r e s u b -

m u s t be s o m e o n e " (and, moreover, someone ex-scribed, some-

ject of t h e v e r b , in s h o r t , a text. B u t by w h a t m a g i c d o e s K a n t

o n e w h o loses t h e power t o say " I " ) . T h i s p u r e p o s i t i o n cer-

identify t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l i m a g i n a t i o n as t h e " I " of language}

t a i n l y d o e s n o t realize t h e i m m e d i a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f " m y -

the

self," b u t i n fact realizes t h e a b s e n c e o f " m y s e l f , " a s w e h a v e

dell'

a l r e a d y n o t e d . W h a t i s m o r e , t h e sheer p o s s i b i l i t y i n g e n e r a l

esperienza e origine della storia], A g a r a b e n calls o u r a t t e n t i o n

o f a n y s p a t i o t e m p o r a l r e l a t i o n i s r a d i c a l l y a n d o r i g i n a r i l y in-

to H a m a n n ' s m e t a c r i t i q u e of K a n t ' s

Critique of Pure Reason.

accessible t o a n y subject. T h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l a p p e r c e p t i o n —

H a m a n n asks: h o w pure is Pure Reason? As we learn from

I , H e , S h e , o r I t — i s n o t a s u p r a c o n c e p t t h a t i n c l u d e s all " P s "

A g a m b e n ' s r e s u s c i t a t i o n o f t h e a r g u m e n t , for K a n t t h e p u r e

u n d e r its u m b r e l l a . It is n o t a c o n c e p t at all. N o r a s u p r a g e n u s ,

geometric unity of the " t h e r e " seems just naturally to belong

n o r a set of all sets. It is precisely t h e r i g o r o u s impossibility of

t o l a n g u a g e , s o t h a t " t r a n s c e n d e n t a l a n d linguistic s e e m t o

a n y such c o n c e p t , of any s u p e r s e n s o r y generality. Totally d e v o i d

In

an

Destruction

earlier

book,

of Experience

Infancy and History: [Infamia

e

storia:

Essays

on

Distruzione

merge [trascendentale e lingüístico s e m b r a n o c o n f o n d e r s i ] . "

6 8

o f all c o n t e n t , o f all e x p e r i e n c e , y e t n o t a b s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g a t

It w a s H a m a n n , according to A g a m b e n , w h o first suggested

all, t h i s t r a n s c e n d e n t a l a p p e r c e p t i o n i s t h e S a m e a s H e i d e g g e r ' s

t h e necessity o f c o n t a m i n a t i n g K a n t i a n p u r i t y b y e x a m i n i n g

Da-sein w h o s e " w h o " i s a l w a y s i n q u e s t i o n .

its h i d d e n (or, L a c a n m i g h t say, its " f o r g o t t e n " ) r e l a t i o n t o

r i e n c e itself as itself a n d it is t h e v e r y eclipse of a u t o a f f e c t i o n .

l a n g u a g e . H e says i t s i m p l y a n d d r a m a t i c a l l y : " R e a s o n i s l a n -

R a d i c a l l y s u s p e n d e d , t h e Da-sein, b e i n g - t h e - t h e r e , is j u s t as

g u a g e , logos. T h i s i s t h e m a r r o w b o n e a t w h i c h I shall g n a w

radically disinherited. Transcendental apperception, the pure

72

It c a n n o t expe-

From H a m a n n ' s intuition, Agamben takes

" t h e r e , " ( d e ) c o n s t i t u t e s t h e " I " t h a t institutes itself i n l a n g u a g e

us directly to the notion, elaborated by Benveniste, t h a t it is in

by interrupting it incessantly—by paralyzing and neutralizing

a n d t h r o u g h l a n g u a g e t h a t t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l s u b j e c t i s insti-

it. K a n t ' s t r a n s c e n d e n t a l a p p e r c e p t i o n h a d t o b e s u p p l e m e n t e d

t u t e d . W i t h impressive simplicity, Benveniste d e c l a r e s , " H e w h o

b y l a n g u a g e i n o r d e r t o i n s t i t u t e a n " I , " a subject. T h a t w h i c h

u n t i l I die o f i t . "

6 9

Prior to any experience, transcending any

a c c o m p a n i e s all m y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a n d m a k e s t h e m m i n e h a s

e m p i r i c a l e x p e r i e n c e , is t h e saying of " I . " T h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l

t o say " I . " B u t t o w h o m , o r t o w h a t reality, will t h i s " I " refer?

says ego is e g o . "

7 0

B e n v e n i s t e answers, rigorously, "To something very singular,

version ol the iubje< t, n o t a n e w foundation, n o r a p u r e a n d

w h i c h is exclusively linguistic: / refers to the act of individual

s i m p l e absence ol foundation. C o m i n g b e i n g is t h e b e i n g t h a t

d i s c o u r s e in w h i c h it is uttered a n d it designates its s p e a k e r

e n t e r s l a n g u a g e a n d w h o s e " t r a n s c e n d e n c e " i s its c o m p l e t e

t h e reality it e v o k e s is t h e r e a l i t y of d i s c o u r s e . "

absorption, w i t h o u t residue, in language. It is the being w h o s e

7 1

T h e fleeting a n d p u r e " I " t h a t K a n t a t t e m p t e d t o p o s i t i n

Being i s its b o r d e r i n g o n l a n g u a g e , o n " a l l its p r e d i c a t e s . " Y o u

transcendental apperception w a s never a n y w h e r e but in lan-

see, t h e r e i s i n fact a n e x p e r i e n c e t h a t " r e m a i n s " w h e n all

g u a g e . T h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l subject, i n t h e e n d , w a s t o h a v e

experience has been expropriated. T h a t experience is the ex-

b e e n m a d e u p o f w o r d s . T h e Umkreis w a s l a n g u a g e . I t w a s

p e r i e n c e of e x p r o p r i a t i o n itself, or l a n g u a g e , for l a n g u a g e is

t h e r e f o r e l a n g u a g e t h a t s t o l e f r o m m e all m y e x p e r i e n c e s a b

t h e e x p r o p r i a t i o n o f all p a r t i c u l a r e x p e r i e n c e s a n d i s t h e s h e e r

o v o . / w a s n e v e r a n y w h e r e b u t i n m y saying " I . " T h e s u b j e c t

possibility of any particular experience. N o t this or t h a t con-

w a s s p o k e n , u t t e r e d : H e w h o said " I . " All e x p e r i e n c e , i n s h o r t ,

t e n t o f l a n g u a g e , n o t t h i s o r t h a t t r u e o r false p r o p o s i t i o n , b u t

w a s always already speech.

There is no prelinguistic subject,

t h e s h e e r a n d fragile fact t h a t " o n e s p e a k s . " T h e c o m i n g b e -

no

transcendence

i n g will b e " c a p a b l e " o f its a b s o r p t i o n , w i t h o u t r e m a i n d e r , i n

dumb

experience,

and no

otherwise

than

in

l a n g u a g e . I t will a t t h e s a m e t i m e " r e t a i n " t h i s " c a p a b i l i t y "

language. T h e s u b j e c t is p u r e l y linguistic b e i n g . W h a t K a n t c a u g h t a g l i m p s e of, t h e r e f o r e , w a s n o t a t all

(or potentia) a n d t h i n k l a n g u a g e a s s u c h . B o t h a c t i v e a n d p a s -

transcendent, but not-yet transcendence, not-yet language.

sive will fuse i n t o a single p a s s i o n . S u c h a b e i n g will r e m a i n

W h a t Kant caught a glimpse of was an impotence or an

" c a p a b l e " of its passivity. It will a l w a y s t h i n k , n o t itself (in its

o r i g i n a r y dependence o n l a n g u a g e . W h a t K a n t s k e t c h e d o u t

i d e n t i t y t h a t l a n g u a g e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y offers a n d w i t h d r a w s )

for us w a s a n o t - y e t s u b j e c t , a H e , S h e , or It t h a t has yet to

but the Same—always the Same experience of expropriation

s p e a k a n d i s t h e r e f o r e not p u r e l y a n d s i m p l y e m b e d d e d i n

a n d a l i e n a t i o n as o r i g i n a l .

l a n g u a g e . H e c a u g h t a g l i m p s e o f t h a t w h i c h m u s t enter l a n -

B e c a u s e I am able to e n t e r l a n g u a g e ( a n d t h e r e is n o t h i n g

g u a g e a n d w h o s e i m p o t e n c e i s its i m p o t e n t " p o w e r " t o think

else for h u m a n b e i n g t o e n t e r ) , I a m a l s o a b l e t o t h i n k t h i s

( b u t n o t t o c i r c u m s c r i b e , o r limit) its " m u s t s p e a k . " T h a t i s t o

entry. I am able to think the r e t u r n of language to language.

say, K a n t d e s c r i b e s for u s , in light of B e n v e n i s t e , in l i g h t of

Such thinking involves, as Blanchot has repeatedly s h o w n , "a

l a n g u a g e , or, m o r e simply, i n light o f L i g h t itself, t h a t w h i c h

loss o f t h e p o w e r t o say T , " a n d t h u s a n i m m e r s i o n i n fasci-

h a s n o V o i c e , i s given n o Voice, b u t m u s t a p p r o p r i a t e l a n -

nation a n d a contact with an absolute milieu. No longer to be

g u a g e n o n e t h e l e s s in o r d e r to be itself. T h a t is to say, it must

a b l e t o say " I " i s t o t h i n k t h e S a m e ( n o o n e , a n y o n e , t h e

appropriate

"mineness."

N e u t e r ) . T h e region of A g a m b e n ' s politics is the region of

" O l d e r " t h a n subjectivity is t h a t w h i c h , in h u m a n being, p r e -

Blanchot's "Essential S o l i t u d e " — e m p t i e d of subject a n d o b -

cedes language. N o t a "wordless" experience, sacred and

ject a n d r a d i c a l l y i m p e r s o n a l like T h o m a s ' s e n c o u n t e r i n t h e

m y s t e r i o u s , b u t t h e e x p e r i e n c e of l a n g u a g e itself.

first c h a p t e r of Thomas L'obscur t h a t L e v i n a s c e l e b r a t e d as so

that

which

will

expropriate

it

of all

7 4

75

I t i s n o t o u t s i d e l a n g u a g e , b u t a t its l i m i t t h a t A g a m b e n

fine a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e il y a. F o r if t h e e n t r y i n t o l a n g u a g e

seeks to p r o v o k e a politics. T h e c o m i n g being is n o t a n o t h e r

e s t a b l i s h e s all p o s s i b l e b e l o n g i n g o r r e l a t i o n - i n - g e n e r a l ( t h a t

w h i c h , i n s h o r t , h e a r s u p o n a n y politics o r any t l h i e s w h a t e v e r ) , it s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a p p r o p r i a t e s us of a n y p a r t i c u l a r relat i o n , p o l i t i c s , or e t h i c s . A n d t h u s p o l i t i c s is

exposed.

Any par-

t i c u l a r p o l i t i c s , o r a n y p o l i t i c s a s u s u a l , a s w e cynically say (as i f i t w e r e a n a u t o n o m o u s s p h e r e c l o s e d t o us), i s o n l y p o l i t i c s

Notes

so-called (as w e m u s t l e a r n t o say i f w e a r e t o e n t e r i t a n d d e s t r o y its p h a n t a s m i c a u t o n o m y ) . T h a t w h i c h i s offered u s i s a l w a y s t h e S a m e : n o t a n ess e n c e , a s h i n i n g p a t h , n o r a destiny, b u t t h e sheer p o s s i b i l i t y of r e l a t i o n in general—a dice t h r o w . A n y p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c or e t h i c is a p o i n t of c o n t a c t w i t h an a b s o l u t e m i l i e u e m p t y of all d e t e r m i n a c y . A n y p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c s is a l s o t h e face, t h e eidos, of " a n y relation at all." W i t h the notion of radical passivity w e h a v e a t t e m p t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h i s b o o k t o d e s c r i b e a general

Introduction

r a p p o r t or an imaginary dimension where we have never been b u t to w h i c h we are e x p o s e d prior to o u r subjective inten-

1.

Emmanuel

Lévinas,

"Philosophy

and Awakening,"

trans.

t i o n s . T h e u n c a n n y " a b i l i t y " t o t h i n k this r a p p o r t i s t h e " a b i l -

M a r y Q u a i n t a n c e , in

ity" to think that which always comes. N o t the masses, nor

Cadava, Peter Connor, a n d Jean-Luc N a n c y ( N e w York: Routledge,

the horde, nor the wolves, and not the hero, nor the indi-

1991), p. 215.

v i d u a l , n o r t h e survivor. T h e m o t l e y .

2.

Who Comes After the Subject?, e d . E d u a r d o

E m m a n u e l Lévinas, " T h e Servant and H e r Master," trans.

M i c h a e l H o l l a n d , in

The Lévinas Reader, e d . S e à n H a n d ( C a m b r i d g e :

Basil Blackwell, 1 9 8 9 ) , p. 1 5 9 n. 3. 3.

E m m a n u e l Lévinas, "Being and the Other: On Paul Celan,"

trans. Stephen Melville,

Chicago Review 2 9 , n o s .

1 6 - 2 1 (winter

1978): 16. 4.

Maurice Blanchot,

" T h e Outside, the Night,"

trans. Ann

The Space of Literature ( L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y o f N e b r a s k a P r e s s , 1 9 8 2 ) , p p . 1 6 4 - 6 7 ; i d e m , " L a d e h o r s , l a n u i t , " i n L'espace Littéraire, I d é e s s e r . ( P a r i s : G a l l i m a r d , 1 9 5 5 ) , p p . 2 2 0 - 2 2 .

S m o c k , in

Chapter 1.

Emmanuel

One. Lévinas,

A l p h o n s o Lingis, in H a n d , ed.,

The

Allegory

"Reality

of Being

a n d Its

Shadow,"

trans.

Lévinas Reader, p . 1 3 3 ; i d e m , " L a 163

rèaIite et son o m b r e , " 1948): 774.

Les Temps Modernes 4, no, 38 (November

I I.udì,

I In m y ( lui <>l Bounds s e i . (Minneapolis: University of Min-

nesota Press, I 99 I), pp. 9 7 - 9 8 . La comunità che viene (Torino: Giulio

2. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. I 33; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 7 7 5 .

Einaudi Editore, 1990), pp. 6 9 - 7 0 .

3. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 132; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 774.

Lydia Davis, in Sitney, éd., Gaze of Orpheus, p p . 8 2 - 8 5 ; idem, " T h e

4. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 133; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " pp. 7 7 4 - 7 5 .

erature , p p . 2 5 7 - 6 0 ; idem, "Les deux versions de l'imaginaire," in

5. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p p . 1 3 3 - 3 4 ; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 7 7 5 .

15. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p . 1 3 6 ; idem, "La réalité

6. Maurice Blanchot, "The Song of the Sirens," trans. Lydia Davis, in The Gaze of Orpheus, ed. P. Adams Sitney (Barrytown, N.Y.: Station Hill Press, 1981), pp. 1 0 5 - 1 3 ; idem, "Le chant des Sirènes," in Le livreà venir, Idées ser. (Paris: Gallimard, 1971),pp. 9 - 1 9 . 7. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 134; idem, "La réalité

14. Maurice Blanchot, " T w o Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Two Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Ann Smock, in Space of LitL'espace littéraire , p p . 3 4 6 - 4 9 . et son o m b r e , " p. 7 7 9 . 16. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 1 4 1 ; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 7 8 7 . 17. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 1 3 5 ; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 7 7 8 . 18. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 137; idem, "La réalité

et son o m b r e , " p. 777.

et son o m b r e , " p. 7 8 1 .

8. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 134; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 776.

et son o m b r e , " p. 7 8 2 .

9. This is hardly the place to summarize Philippe LacoueLabarthe's carefully nuanced w o r k on the question of mimesis. We only wish to note that he studies various attempts to restrict, reduce, ignore, or decide on mimesis, and he characterizes each of these attempts as profoundly political or moral gestures. See especially his " T y p o g r a p h y , " trans. E d u a r d o C a d a v a , "Diderot: P a r a d o x a n d

19. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 137; idem, "La réalité 2 0 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 139; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 7 8 3 - 8 4 . 2 1 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 138; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 7 8 2 . 2 2 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 138; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 782 (emphasis mine).

Mimesis," trans. Jane P o p p , and "Transcendence Ends in Politics,"

2 3 . On this point see Jacques Derrida, "At this very m o m e n t in

trans. Peter Caws, in Typography: Mimesis, Philosophy, Politics, ed.

this w o r k here I a m , " t r a n s . R u b e n Berezdivin, in Re-Reading

Christopher Fynsk (Cambridge: H a r v a r d University Press, 1989);

Lévinas, ed. Robert Bernasconi and Simon Critchley (Bloomington:

see as well idem, Heidegger, Art and Politics: The Fiction of the

Indiana University Press, 1991), p p . 1 1 - 4 8 ; see also J o h n Llewelyn,

Political, trans. Chris Turner (Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1990). 10. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p p . 1 3 4 - 3 5 ; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 777. 1 1 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 135; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 7 7 8 . 12. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 1 4 1 ; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 786. 1 3 . Giorgio Agamben, The Coming Community, trans. Michael

"Lévinas, Derrida and Others Vis-à-vis," in The Provocation of Lévinas, ed. R o b e r t Bernasconi a n d D a v i d W o o d ( N e w York: Routledge, 1988), p p . 1 5 3 - 5 4 . 2 4 . Blanchot, "Two Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Davis, p. 87; idem, " T h e Two Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Smock, p. 2 6 1 ; idem, "Les deux versions de l'imaginaire," p. 3 5 2 . 2 5 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 139; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 784.

2 6 . Lévinas, "Reality anil et son o m b r e , " p. 7 8 5 .

lis

Shadow," p. 140;

idem, " l a

réalité

87; idem, " I he [\VO Versions ol d i e Imaginary," trans. Smock, p. 262;

idem, "Les deux versions de

l'imaginaire," p . 350 (italics in

2 7 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 139; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 784.

original).

2 8 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 140; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 786.

et son o m b r e , " p. 786.

2 9 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 140; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 7 8 5 .

87; idem, " T h e T w o Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Smock, p.

3 0 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 1 4 1 ; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 786. 3 1 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 1 4 1 - 4 2 ; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p . 7 8 7 .

39. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 1 4 1 ; idem, "La réalité 4 0 . Blanchot, " T w o Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Davis, p. 2 6 2 ; idem, "Les deux versions de l'imaginaire," p. 3 5 2 . 4 1 . Michel Foucault, " M a u r i c e Blanchot: The T h o u g h t from Outside," trans. Brian Massumi, in Foucault/Blanchot (New York: Z o n e Books, 1987), p. 17.

32. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 142; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 788.

Chapter

3 3 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 142; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 788.

1. Emmanuel Lévinas,

sence, trans. Alphonso Lingis (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981),

34. The notion of an "interruption of m y t h " that Lévinas puts

p. 191 n. 3; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence (The

forward here has recently been developed in an essay by Jean-Luc

Two.

Levinas's

Ethics

Otherwise than Being or Beyond Es-

H a g u e : M a r t i n u s Nijhoff, 1974), p. 86 n. 3.

N a n c y entitled " M y t h Interrupted," trans. Peter Connor, in The In-

2. Lévinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p p . 5 0 ,

operative Community, ed. Peter Connor, Theory and History of Lit-

1 3 6 - 4 0 ; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p p . 6 4 ,

erature ser. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), p p .

1 7 4 - 7 9 (italics in original).

4 3 - 7 0 ; and also in an essay on Paul Celan by Philippe Lacoue-

3. Emmanuel Lévinas, "Bad Conscience and the Inexorable,"

Labarthe entitled " C a t a s t r o p h e , " trans. Andrea Tarnowski, in Word

trans. Richard A. Cohen, in Face to Face with Lévinas, ed. Richard

Traces: Readings of Paul Celan, ed. Aris Fioretos (Baltimore: The

A. Cohen (Albany: State University of N e w York Press, 1986), p p .

Johns H o p k i n s University Press, 1994), p p . 1 3 0 - 5 6 .

3 6 - 4 0 ; idem, "La mauvaise conscience et l'inexorable" in De Dieu

3 5 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 132; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 7 7 3 : "[A]rt does not belong to the order of revelation. N o r does it belong to that of creation, which moves in just the opposite direction [l'art n'appartient pas à l'ordre de la révélation. N i , d'ailleurs, à celui de la création dont le mouvement se poursuit

qui vient à l'idée (Paris: Vrin, 1982), pp. 2 5 8 - 6 5 . 4. Emmanuel Lévinas, "Dialogue with Emmanuel Lévinas," trans. Richard Kearney, in Face to Face with Lévinas, p. 2 1 . 5. Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, " É c o u t e , " Poésie 35 (1986): 110. 6. Lévinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p.

11;

dans un sens exactement inverse]."

idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 14.

3 6 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 142; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 788.

A Capuzzi, ed. David Farrell Krell (San Francisco: H a r p e r and Row,

37. Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 137; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 7 8 1 . 3 8 . Blanchot, "Two Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Davis, p.

7. M a r t i n Heidegger, Nihilism, vol. 4 of Nietzsche, trans. Frank 1982), p p . 9 6 - 1 1 8 . 8. Lévinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 8; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p.

10.

9. It should be clear even from our analysis so far thai the language of Levinas translates nicely into the I Iciclcggerian German of

2 1 . | evinos, < Hhârwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 112; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 1 4 3 .

Sein und Lett. This paragraph and the entire discussion of alterity

2 2 . Borch-Jacobsen, "The Unconscious Nonetheless," p p . 150,

echoes Heidegger's Ruf (Anruf, Aufruf) and his Schuldigsein. At the

197 n. 4 5 ; see also Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, The Freudian Subject,

end of this chapter, we will take up the question of Levinas's affinity

trans. Catherine Porter (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press,

(and aversion) to Heidegger.

1988), p. 26ff.

10. Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 2 5 ; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 32. 1 1 . Levinas, Otherivise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 69; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 86. 12. Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 1 4 8 ; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 189.

2 3 . Borch-Jacobsen, "The Freudian Subject," p. 2 6 . 2 4 . François Roustang, foreword, trans. Catherine Porter, to Borch-Jacobsen, Freudian Subject, p. ix. 2 5 . Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 2 0 . 2 6 . Lacoue-Labarthe, "Diderot: P a r a d o x and Mimesis," p . 2 5 9 . 2 7 . Levinas,

1 3 . Heidegger, Nihilism, p p . 1 0 2 - 1 0 . 14. Two impressive books by Michel Henry take up this thesis: The Essence of Manifestation, trans. Girard Etzkorn (The H a g u e : M a r t i n u s Nijhoff, 1973) and Généalogie de la psychanalyse (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985); but see also Mikkel BorchJacobsen's insightful summary and critique of the argument, " T h e

16;

Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 59;

idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 76. 2 8 . Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 114; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 146. 2 9 . Agamben, Coming Community, p. 4 3 ; idem, La comunità che viene , p. 30.

Unconscious Nonetheless," trans. Douglas Brick, in The Emotional

30. Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 193 n.

Tie (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1992), p p . 1 2 3 - 5 4 .

3 5 : " N o language other than ethics could be equal to the p a r a d o x

1 5 . Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 124;

which phenomenological description enters when, starting with the

idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 159.

disclosure, the appearing of a neighbor, it reads it in its trace, which

16. Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 5 8 ;

orders the face according to a diachrony which cannot be synchro-

idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 75 (italics in

nized in representation;" idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de

original).

l'essence, p. 120 n. 35: "Aucun langage autre qu'éthique n'est à même

17. Levinas, "Dialogue with Emmanuel Levinas," p. 2 8 .

d'égaler le p a r a d o x e où entre la description phénoménologique qui,

18. Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, " T h e Freudian Subject: From Poli-

p a r t a n t du dévoilement du prochain, de son apparaître, le lit dans sa

tics to Ethics," trans. Richard Miller and X. P. Callahan, in Emo-

trace qui l'ordonne visage selon une diachronie non-synchronisable

tional Tie, p p . 1 5 - 2 1 ; on this point see also Jean Luc-Nancy and

dans le représentation."

Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, The Title of the Letter, trans. François Raffoul and David Pettigrew (Albany: State University of N e w York Press, 1992).

Francisco: City Lights Books, 1989), p. 206ff. 32. M u c h of this discussion of Levinas's ethics (and much of my

19. Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 104; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p.

3 1 . Georges Bataille, The Tears of Eros, trans. Peter C o n n o r (San

132-33.

2 0 . Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 106; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 1 3 5 .

understanding of Blanchot) owes its inspiration to t w o sensitive articles by William Flesch: "Proximity and Power: Shakespearean and D r a m a t i c Space," Theater Journal 3 9 , no. 3 (October 1987); idem, " P o s t h u m o u s Sadness," unpublished paper.

I i. Qu< iicd h y Maurice Blam hoi m The Unallowable < cm inanity, trans. Picric J o n s (BarrytOWfl, N.Y.: Station I [ill Press, I VSS),

'It Quoted bj lacques Derrida m "Introduction: Desistance," trans. ( Li i s 11 > i ) 11 e i lynsk, in Lacouc-Labarthe, typography, p. 2 3 .

p. 9; idem, La communauté inavouable (Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1983), p. 21 (italics in original). 34. Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 193 n.

Chapter Three.

Blanchot,

the

Literature

Image

of

L'arrêt de mort, and

3 3 ; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 116 n. 3 3 . In this quiet note Levinas more or less admits that the olamic r a p p o r t

1. Blanchot, " T h e Narrative Voice," trans. Davis, p p . 1 3 3 - 4 4 ;

with the Other is anything but equaled by the language of ethics; the

idem, " T h e Narrative Voice," trans. Hanson, p p . 3 7 9 - 8 7 ; idem, "La

rapport, in fact, is a problem for ethics to solve.

voix narrative," p p . 4 2 1 - 3 7 .

3 5 . Maurice Blanchot, "The Narrative Voice," trans. Lydia Davis,

2. Emmanuel Levinas, Existence and Existents, trans. Alphonso

in Sitney, ed., Gaze of Orpheus, p p . 1 3 3 - 4 4 ; idem, " T h e Narrative

Lingis (The Flague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1978), p p . 5 2 - 6 4 ; idem, De

Voice," trans. Susan H a n s o n , in The Infinite Conversation, Theory

l'existence à l'existant (Paris: Vrin, 1981), p p . 8 1 - 1 0 5 .

a n d History of Literature ser. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1 9 9 3 ) , p p . 3 7 9 - 8 7 ; idem, "La v o i x n a r r a t i v e , " i n L'entretien infini (Paris: Gallimard, 1969), p p . 4 2 1 - 3 7 .

3. Levinas, Existence and Existents, p p .

5 6 - 5 7 ; idem, De

l'existence à l'existant, p. 9 1 . 4. Levinas, Existence and Existents, p. 5 6 ; idem, De l'existence

36. This Other (Autrui), is, as we have been stressing, neither this one nor that one, neither an individual nor a group or crowd, but instead a singularity whose radical indifferentiation is the other

à l'existant, p. 9 1 . 5. Levinas, Existence and Existents, p. 57; idem, De l'existence à l'existant, p. 9 1 . 6. A g a m b e n ,

of any representable difference.

Coming

Community,

pp.

53-58;

idem,

37. Jean-Luc Nancy, "Of B e i n g - i n - C o m m o n , " t r a n s . J a m e s Creech, in Community at Loose Ends, ed. Miami Theory Collective (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), p p . 1-12.

comunità che viene, p p . 3 6 - 3 9 .

3 8 . Blanchot, Unavowable Community, p. 8; idem, La communauté inavouable, p. 19.

caractères de l'œuvre d'art," in L'espace littéraire, p. 2 9 7 .

39. Cohen Éthique 1982),

"Les caractères de l'œuvre d'art," p. 2 9 7 .

Emmanuel Levinas, Ethics and Infinity, trans. Richard A. (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1982), p. 86; idem, et infini (Paris: Librarie Arthème Fayard et Radio France, p. 80.

4 0 . B l a n c h o t , Unavowable Community, communauté inavouable, p. 2 4 .

p.

11;

idem,

7. Maurice Blanchot, "Characteristics of the Work of Art," t r a n s . Ann Smock, in Space of Literature, p. 2 2 4 ; idem, "Les 8. Blanchot, "Characteristics of the Work of Art," p. 2 2 3 ; idem, 9. Blanchot, "Characteristics of the Work of Art," p. 2 2 3 ; idem, "Les caractères de l'œuvre d'art," p. 2 9 6 . 10. Blanchot, "Characteristics of the Work of Art," p. 2 2 3 ; idem,

La

"Les caractères de l'œuvre d'art," p. 2 9 6 .

4 1 . Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 193 n.

"Les caractères de l'œuvre d'art," p. 2 9 7 .

1 1 . Blanchot, "Characteristics of the Work of Art," p. 2 2 3 ; idem,

1; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 125 n. 1. 4 2 . Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, "History and Mimesis," trans. E d u a r d o C a d a v a , in

Looking After Nietzsche, ed.

La

Laurence A.

Ricklels (Albany: State University of N e w York Press, 1990), p. 2 2 9 .

12. Levinas, Existence and Existents, p. 5 6 ; idem, De l'existence à l'existant, p. 90. 1 3 . Levinas, Existence and Existents, p. 57; idem, De l'existence à l'existant, p. 9 2 .

14. Levinas, Existence and Existents, p. 57; idem, De l'existence à l'existant, p p . 9 3 - 9 4 .

(I.

Blani hot, D$ath S,•nlrin<\ p. 46; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p.

76.

15. Blanchot, "Two Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Davis, p.

32. Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 1; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 7.

79; idem, "The Two Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Smock, p.

3 3 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 2; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 8.

2 5 4 ; idem, "Les deux versions de l'imaginaire," p. 3 4 1 .

34. Levinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 139; idem, "La réalité

16. J e a n - L u c Nancy, " O f B e i n g - i n - C o m m o n , " t r a n s . J a m e s Creech, in Miami Theory Collective, ed., Community at Loose Ends,

35. Marcel Proust, Remembrance of Things Past, trans. C. K. Scott Moncrieff and Terence Kilmartin (New York: R a n d o m H o u s e ,

p. 2. 17. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. N o r m a n Kant and the Problem

1981), 3:802. 36. M a u r i c e Blanchot, The Step Not Beyond, t r a n s . Lycette

Kemp Smith (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965), p. 1 8 3 . 18. M a r t i n Heidegger,

et son o m b r e , " p. 784.

of Metaphysics,

trans. James S. Churchill (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,

Nelson (Albany: State University of N e w York Press, 1992), p. 5 0 ; idem, Le pas au-delà (Paris: Gallimard 1973), p. 7 2 . 37. Levinas, "The Servant and Her Master," p. 1 5 3 ; idem, "La

1962), p p . 1 0 2 - 6 . 19. William J. Richardson, S.J., Heidegger: Through Phenomenology to Thought (The Hague: M a r t i n u s Nijhoff, 1963), p. 132.

servante et son maître," in Sur Maurice Blanchot (Montpellier: Fata

2 0 . Agamben, Coming Community, p p . 1-2; idem, La comunità che viene, p p . 3 - 4 .

3 8 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 79; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p.

2 1 . A g a m b e n , Coming Community, comunità che viene, p p . 5 3 - 5 8 .

pp.

53-56;

idem,

La

M o r g a n a , 1975), p . 34.

126. 39. Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 8 1 . 4 0 . Maurice Blanchot, "Reading," trans. Lydia Davis, in Gaze

2 2 . A gamben, Coming Community, p. 76; idem, La comunità che viene, p. 52.

of Orpheus, p p . 9 4 - 9 6 ; idem, "Reading," trans. Ann Smock, in Space

2 3 . M a u r i c e Blanchot, Death Sentence, t r a n s . Lydia Davis (Barrytown, N Y : Station Hill Press, 1978), p. 3 1 ; idem, L'arrêt de mort (Paris: Gallimard, 1948), p. 54.

256-58.

2 4 . Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p p . 8 1 9; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p p . 1 0 2 - 1 3 . 2 5 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 54; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 88. 2 6 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 5 4 - 5 5 ; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p . 89. 2 7 . Levinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p.

Ill;

idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 1 4 1 . 2 8 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 1; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 7. 2 9 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 4 6 ; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 76.

of Literature, p p . 1 9 4 - 9 6 ; idem, "Lire," in L'espace littéraire, p p . 4 1 . Steven Shaviro, Passion and Excess: Blanchot, Bataille, and Literary Theory (Tallahassee: The Florida State University Press, 1990), p p . 1 4 2 - 4 3 . 4 2 . Blanchot, Step Not Beyond, p. 5 0 ; idem, Le pas au-delà, p. 72. 4 3 . Shaviro, Passion and Excess, p p . 1 4 2 - 4 3 . 4 4 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 79; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 126. 4 5 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 79; idem, L'arrêt de mort, 127. 4 6 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 80; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 127. 4 7 . Maurice Blanchot, "Kafka and the Work's D e m a n d , " trans. A n n Smock, in Space of Literature, p. 5 7 - 8 3 ; idem, "Kafka et

30. Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 46; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 7 6 .

l'exigence de l'œuvre," in L'espace littéraire, p p . 5 9 - 9 8 .

48. Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 32; idem, L'arrêt de

mori,

p,

55. 4 9 . Blanchot, Deaï/j Sentence, p. 72; idem, //arre/ de mort, p. 115. 50. Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 72; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 116. 5 1 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 79; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 126. 52. Agamben, Coming Community, p. che viene, p. 5 8 .

84; idem, La comunità

5 3 . Agamben, Coming Community, p. 84; idem, La comunità che viene, p. 5 8 . 5 4 . Blanchot, Step Not Beyond, p. 9 3 ; idem, Le pas au-delà, p. 129. 5 5 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 140; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 7 8 5 . 56. Lévinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p. 199 n. 2 1 ; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p. 191 n. 2 1 . 57. R Adams Sitney makes this observation in his afterword to Blanchot, Gaze of Orpheus, p. 1 7 1 . 5 8 . Shaviro, Passion and Excess, p p . 1 4 2 - 7 0 . 59. Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 2 0 ; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 30. 60. Foucault, "Maurice Blanchot," p. 39. 6 1 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 30; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 52-53.

68.

I evinflS, "The Sci vani and I 1er Master," p. 155; idem, "La

servante el sun maître," p. 37. 69. Lévinas, " T h e Servant and Her Master," p. 157; idem, "La servante et son maître," p. 40. 70. Lévinas, " T h e Servant and Her Master," p. 157; idem, "La servante et son maitre," p. 40. 7 1 . Lévinas, "The Servant and Her Master," p. 157; idem, "La servante et son maître," p. 4 0 . 72. Agamben, Coming Community, p. 104; idem, La comunità che viene, p. 77. 7 3 . Blanchot, " T h e Outside, the Night," p. 1 6 3 - 7 0 ; idem, "La dehors, la nuit," p p . 2 1 3 - 2 4 . 74. Blanchot, "Characteristics of the Work of Art," p p . 2 3 2 ; idem, "Les caractères de l'œuvre d'art," p p . 310. 7 5 . Lévinas, Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, p.

104

and 106; idem, Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence, p p . 1 3 2 33 and 135. 76. Blanchot, "Characteristics of the Work of Art," p p . 2 3 2 - 3 3 ; idem, "Les caractères de l'œuvre d'art," p. 310. 7 7 . Blanchot, "Characteristics of the Work of Art," p. 2 3 3 ; idem, "Les caractères de l'œuvre d'art," p. 3 1 1 . 7 8 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 2 0 ; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 35. 79. Blanchot, "Two Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Davis, p. 87; idem, "The Two Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Smock, p p . 2 6 1 - 6 2 ; idem, "Les deux versions de l'imaginaire," p. 3 5 2 .

6 2 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 20; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p. 3 5 .

80. " T h e dead present is the impossibility of realizing a pres-

6 3 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 2 0 ; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p.

ence—an impossibility that is present, that is there as that which

36.

doubles every present, the s h a d o w of the present, which the present 64. Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 8 1 .

6 5 . Lévinas, " T h e Servant and H e r Master," p. 1 5 5 ; idem, "La servante et son maître," p. 37. 6 6 . Lévinas, " T h e Servant and H e r Master," p. 155; idem, "La servante et son maître," p. 37. 67. Lévinas, "The Servant and H e r Master," p. 1 5 5 ; idem, "La servante et son maître," p. 37.

carries and hides in itself. W h e n I am alone, in this present, I am not alone, but am already returning to myself in the form of Someone. Someone is there, when I am alone. [Le présent mort est l'impossibilité de réaliser une présence, impossibilité qui est présente, qui est là c o m m e ce qui double tout présent, l'ombre du présent, que celui-ci p o r t e et dissimule en lui. Q u a n d je suis seul, je ne suis pas seul, mais, dans ce présent, je reviens déjà à moi sous la forme de Q u e l q u ' u n .

Quelqu'un est là, où je suis seul.]" Maurice Blanchot, " T h e Essential Solitude," trans. Lydia Davis, in Gaze <>/ Orpheus, p. 74; idem, "The Essential Solitude," trans. Ann Smock, in Space of Literature, p. 3 1 ; idem, "La solitude essentielle," in L'espace littéraire, p. 2 7 . 8 1 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p. 32; idem, L'arrêt de mort, p p . 55-56. 82. Blanchot, "Characteristics of the Work of Art," p. 2 3 2 ; idem, "Les caractères de l'œuvre d'art," p. 310.

12. Antonin Artaud, "Exposition Balthus à la Gallerie Pierre," La Nouvelle Revue français 2 2 , no. 248 (May 1934): 8 9 9 - 9 0 . 1 3 . Agamben, Coming Community, p. 89; idem, La comunità che viene, p. 6 2 . 14. Translator's note in Agamben, Corning Community, p. 1 0 7 . 1 5 . Jean-Paul Sartre, The Transcendence of the Ego, trans. Forrest Williams and Robert Kirkpatrick (New York: Hill and Wang, 1990). 16. Agamben, Corning Community, p p . 6 6 - 6 7 ; idem, La comunità che viene, p p . 4 5 - 4 6 .

Chapter

Four.

Agamben

and

the

Political

Neuter

17. Blanchot, " T w o Versions of the Imaginary," p. 8 5 ; idem, " T h e Two Versions of the Imaginary," p. 2 6 0 ; idem, "Les deux ver-

1. Blanchot, "The Essential Solitude," trans. Davis, p. 6 9 ; idem, " T h e Essential Solitude," trans. Smock, p p . 2 6 - 2 7 ; idem, "La solitude essentielle," p. 2 1 . 2. Blanchot, "The Essential Solitude," trans. Davis, p. 69; idem, " T h e Essential Solitude," trans. Smock, p. 27; idem, "La solitude essentielle," p. 17. 3. Blanchot, "The Essential Solitude," trans. Davis, p. 77; idem, " T h e Essential Solitude," trans. Smock, p. 3 3 ; idem, "La solitude essentielle," p p . 2 7 - 2 8 . 4. Blanchot, "The Essential Solitude," trans. Davis, p. 74; idem, " T h e Essential Solitude," trans. Smock, p. 3 1 ; idem, "La solitude essentielle," p. 2 4 . 5. Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, "Hypnosis in Psychoanalysis," trans. Angela Brewer and X. P. Callahan, in Emotional Tie, p. 50. 6. On the relation between analysis, hysteria and narrative modes see ibid., p. 184 n. 14. 7. Ibid., p p . 4 9 - 6 2 . 8. Lacoue-Labarthe, "Typography," p. 1 3 3 .

sions de l'imaginaire," p. 3 5 0 . 18. Agamben, comunità che viene, 19. Agamben, che viene, p. 1 5 . 2 0 . Agamben, che viene, p p . 8-9. 2 1 . Agamben, che viene, p. 58 22. Agamben,

Coming

Community,

pp.

19-20;

idem,

La

pp. 15-16. Coming Community, p.

19; idem, La comunità

Coming Community, p.

1 1 ; idem, La comunità

Coming Community, p.

85; idem, La comunità

Coming

Community,

pp.

79-83;

idem,

La

comunità che viene, p p . 5 3 - 5 7 . Let us emphasize yet again the neutrality of this " o n e " w h o speaks. It is not simply the experience that J speak, but rather that the "I speak" is neutralized such t h a t it is experienced as an anonymous entry into language. As it enters language, the individual identity " I " is overwhelmed and carried away by language, or, more simply, by speaking. 2 3 . Blanchot, Death Sentence, p p . 6 1 - 6 3 ; idem, L'arrêt de mort, pp.99-103.

9. Blanchot, "Two Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Davis, p. 8 8 ; idem, " T h e T w o Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Smock, p. 2 6 2 ; idem, "Les deux versions de l'imaginaire," p. 3 5 2 .

tivity, trans. Karen E. Pinkus with Michael Hardt, Theory and History

10. Levinas, Existence and Existents, p. 5 6 ; idem, De l'existence à l'existant, p. 90.

p p . 8 4 - 9 8 ; idem, 17 linguaggio e la morte: Un seminario sul luogo

1 1 . Levinas, Existence and Existents, p. 56; idem, De l'existence à l'existant, p. 9 0 .

2 4 . Giorgio Agamben, Language and Death: The Place of Negaof Literature ser. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991 ), della negatività (Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1982), p p . 1 0 4 - 2 3 . 2 5 . A g a m b e n , Language and Death, linguaggio e la morte, p p . 1 1 8 - 2 0 .

pp.

9 4 - 9 5 ; i d e m , Il

26. Agamben, Language and Death, pp, 63 65; idem, // //// guaggio e la morte, pp. 7 9 - 8 I. 2 7 . Agamben, Coming Community, p. 82; idem, che viene, p. 56.

comunità

)6, Ibid., p. 1 1 3 Lb 37. I'.I.IIK hot, "Two Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Davis, p. 87; idem, " H i e Two Versions of the Imaginary," trans. Smock, p p . 2 6 1 - 6 2 ; idem, "Les deux versions de 1'imaginaire," 356.

2 8 . A g a m b e n , Language and Death, p p . 9 6 - 1 0 6 ; idem, 77

3 8 . Richardson, Heidegger, pp. 107ff., in the pages that follow

linguaggio e la morte, p p . 1 2 1 - 3 3 . Proper attention to this highly

we will reproduce the architecture of Richardson's summary of the

important book would require its o w n chapter. We simply wish to

Kantbuch, highlighting those aspects that intersect with our interest

retain from this book Agamben's drive to think community (human

in Agamben, and departing from Richardson only to quote either

being) outside negativity, negative presentation, or negative theol-

Heidegger's or Kant's own words in order to more rigorously specify

ogy. He is critical of Blanchot's La communauté inavouable for re-

the notions that interest us.

taining too negative a language. It is a part of our effort here to

39. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, p. 2 6 9 .

show that what Blanchot will describe as an "inability to say I,"

4 0 . Fleidegger, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, p. 36 n.

Agamben will describe as an "ability to not say I." T h a t is, his La comunità che viene answers the promise of an "infancy of the hu-

17.

m a n " that concludes 77 linguaggio e la morte by nuancing Blanchotian

4 1 . Ibid., p. 37 (italics in original). 4 2 . Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, p. 84.

anonymity t o w a r d a latent, ambiguous, and radical potential.

4 3 . Ibid., p . 1 8 1 .

2 9 . Agamben, Language and Death, p. 94; idem, 27 linguaggio e la morte, p. 118 (italics in original).

6 [italics in original].

30. Agamben, Coming Community, p p . 9 6 - 9 7 . (According to a private conversation with Agemben's translator, the parenthetical passage from which this quotation is taken appears only in the French and English editions of the text.) 3 1 . Lévinas, "Reality and Its Shadow," p. 135; idem, "La réalité et son o m b r e , " p. 777. 32. Agamben, Coming Community, p. 1 0 1 ; idem, La comunità che viene, p. 73 (italics in original). 33. Agamben,

Coming

Community,

4 4 . Heidegger, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, p p . 1 0 2 -

pp.

76-77;

idem,

La

comunità che viene, pp. 5 1 - 5 2 . Agamben understands the Idea as that " h a l o , " or supplement, or pre-scriptive image, that para-exists in the empty space of "all its predicates." Like Lévinas and Blanchot, he understands the concept to refer to being as it is grasped in its

4 5 . Agamben, Coming Community, pp. 9 - 1 2 ; idem, La comunità che viene, p p . 7—9. 4 6 . Richardson, Heidegger, p. 1 3 1 . 4 7 . Ibid., p . 1 3 1 . 4 8 . Agamben, Coming Community, p. 77; idem, La comunità che viene, p. 52 (italics in original). 4 9 . Richardson, Heidegger, p. 132. 5 0 . Agamben, Coming Community, p.

10; idem, La comunità

che viene, p. 8 (italics in original). 5 1 . Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, p. 137. 52. Heidegger, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, p. 1 2 7 . 5 3 . Martin Heidegger, "Brief iiber den H u m a n i s m u s , " in Wegmarken (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1976), p. 3 5 9 .

intelligibility within the horizons of a world.

54. Richardson, Heidegger, p. 152.

34. Agamben, Coming Community, p. che viene, p. 62.

5 5 . Immanuel Kant, Opus postbumum, trans. Eckart Forster and

89; idem, La comunità

3 5 . Heidegger, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, p p . 1 0 2 6.

Michael Rosen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 172. 56. Richardson, Heidegger, p. 154.

57. Agamben, < 'otning < Community, p. 103; idem, La comunità che viene, p. 7 5 . 5 8 . Agamben, Corning Community, p. 76; idem, La comunità 1 1 ; idem, La comunità

che viene, p. 9. 60. Agamben, Corning Community, p. 1 1 ; idem, L<2 comunità 6 1 . Blanchot, "The Essential Solitude," trans. Davis, p. 69; idem, " T h e Essential Solitude," trans. Smock, p. 2 6 ; idem, "La solitude essentielle," p. 17. 82; idem, La comunità

che viene, p. 56. 6 3 . Agamben, Corning Community, p.

82; idem, La comunità

che viene, p. 56. 6 4 . Agamben, Corning Community, p. 79; idem, La comunità che viene, p. 5 3 . 6 5 . Borch-Jacobsen, " T h e Freudian Subject," p. 3 5 . 66. Agamben, Coming Community, p. 50; idem, La comunità che viene, p. 3 5 . 6 7 . Quoted by Giorgio Agamben in Infancy and History: Essays on the Destruction of Experience, trans. Liz H e r o n (London: Verso,

1 9 9 3 ) , p p . 3 1 - 3 2 ; idem, Infanzia e storia: Distruzione

dell'esperienza e origine della storia (Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1978), p 2 7 . 6 8 . Agamben, Infancy and History, p. 44; idem, Infanzia e storia, pp.41-42. 69. Q u o t e d in Agamben, Infancy and History, p. 4 4 ; idem, Infanzia e storia, p. 4 1 . 7 0 . Q u o t e d in Agamben, Infancy and History, p. 4 5 ; idem, Infanzia e storia, p. 4 3 . 7 1 . Agamben, Infancy and History, p. 46; idem, Infanzia e storia, pp.43-44. 72. M a r t i n Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. J o h n Macquarrie a n d Edward Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p p . 149-219.

Infanzia e storia, p. 44. 74 Blanchot, " T h e Essential Solitude," trans. Davis, pp. 6 3 - / / ; solitude essentielle," p p . 1 3 - 3 2 . 75.

che viene, p p . 8-9.

6 2 . Agamben, Coming Community, p.

Infancy and History, p. 46; idem,

idem, "The Essential Solitude," trans. Smock, pp. 2 1 - 3 4 ; idem, "La

che viene, p. 52 [italics in originai]. 59. Agamben, Corning Community, p.

73, Quoted In Agamben,

Levinas, Existence and Existents, p. 63 n. 7; idem, De

l'existence à l'existant, p. 103 n. 1.

Selected Bibliography

Agamben, Giorgio. The Coming Community. Translated by Michael H a r d t . Theory O u t of Bounds ser. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1 9 9 3 . . La comunità che viene. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1990. . Infancy and History: Essays on the Destruction of Experience. Translated by Liz H e r o n . London: Verso, 1 9 9 3 . . Infanzia e storia: Distruzione dell'esperienza e origine della storia. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1 9 7 8 . . Language and Death: The Place of Negativity. Translated by Karen Pinkus with Michael H a r d t . Theory and History of Literature ser. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991. . Il linguaggio e la morte: Un seminario sul luogo della negatività. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1982. Artaud, Antonin. "Exposition Balthus à la Gallerie Pierre." La Nouvelle Revue Français 2 2 , n o . 2 4 8 (May 1934). Bataille, Georges. The Tears of Eros. Translated by Peter Connor. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1989. Blanchot, Maurice. L'arrêt de mort. L'imaginaire ser. Paris: Gallimard, 1 9 7 1 . 183

. La communauté inavouable. Paris: Les Editions Minuit, 1983. . Death Sentence. Translated by Lydia Davis. Barrytown, N.Y.: Station Hill Press, 1978. . L'espace littéraire. Idées ser. Paris: Gallimard, 1955. . The Gaze of Orpheus. Translated by Lydia Davis. Barrytown, N.Y.: Station Hill Press, 1 9 8 1 . . The Infinite Conversation. Translated by Susan H a n s o n . Theory and History of Literature ser. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1 9 9 3 .

. "Posthumous Sadness." I inpnMislu-d paper. Foucault, Michel. Maurice Blanchot: The Thought from Outside, translated by Brian Massumi. In Foucault/Blanchot. New York: Z o n e Books, 1987. Heidegger, M a r t i n . Being and Time. Translated by J o h n M a c q u a r r i e and Edward Robinson. N e w York: H a r p e r and Row, 1962. . "Brief über den H u m a n i s m u s . " In Wegmarken. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1976. . Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. Translated by

. Le livre à venir. Idées ser. Paris: Gallimard, 1 9 7 1 .

James S. Churchill. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,

. The Space of Literature. Translated by Ann Smock.

1962. . "Letter on H u m a n i s m . " In Basic Writings, translated by

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982. . The Step Not Beyond. Translated by Lycette Nelson. Albany: State University of N e w York Press, 1992.

David Farrell Krell. N e w York: Flarper and Row, 1977. . Nihilism. Vol. 4 of Nietzsche, translated by David Farrell

. Thomas the Obscure. Translated by Robert Lamberton. Barrytown, N.Y.: Station Hill Press, 1 9 8 8 .

Krell. San Francisco: H a r p e r and Row, 1982.

. The Unavoidable Community. Translated by Pierre Joris. Barrytown, N . Y : Station Hill Press, 1988.

Hofstadter. N e w York: H a r p e r and Row, 1 9 7 1 .

. When the Time Comes. Translated by Lydia Davis.

K e m p Smith. N e w York: St. Martin's Press, 1 9 6 5 . Michael Rosen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Borch-Jacobsen, Mikkel. "Écoute." Poésie 35 (1986). The Emotional Tie: Psychoanalysis,

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by N o r m a n . Opus posthumum. Translated by Eckart Förster a n d

Barrytown, N . Y : Station Hill Press. .

. Poetry, Language, Thought. Translated by Albert

Mimesis,

and Affect.

Translated by Douglas Brick et al. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. . The Freudian Subject. Translated by Douglas Brick.

1993. Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe. " C a t a s t r o p h e , " translated by Andrea Tarnowski. In Word Traces, edited by Aris Fioretos. Baltimore: The J o h n s H o p k i n s University Press, 1994.

Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1988.

. Heidegger, Art and Politics. Translated by Chris Turner.

Derrida, Jacques. "At this m o m e n t in this w o r k here I a m . " Translated by Ruben Berezdivin. In Re-reading Levinas,

Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1990. . "History and Mimesis," translated by E d u a r d o Cadava.

edited by Robert Bernasoni a n d Simon Critchley.

In Looking After Nietzsche, edited by Laurence A. Rickels.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1 9 9 1 .

Albany: State University of N e w York Press, 1990.

. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: T h e J o h n s H o p k i n s University Press, 1976. Flesch, William. "Proximity and Power: Shakespearean a n d D r a m a t i c Space." Theater Journal 3 9 , n o . 3 (October 1987).

.

Typography: Mimesis,

Philosophy, Politics. Edited by

Christopher Fynsk. Cambridge: H a r v a r d University Press, 1989. Levinas, Emmanuel. Autrement qu'ètre ou au-delà de l'essence. T h e H a g u e : M a r t i n u s Nijhoff, 1 9 7 4 .

SKI I '

. " I k i n g and the Other: On Paul Celan," translated by 1

Steven Melville. Chicago Review! ), nos.

16-21 (winter,

1978).

. " ( ) l Being in

M l ) Il I II M

('.i i i i i n i i H I , "

( M .

K A I'

11

Y

translated by James (Ireec h. in

Community at Loose Ends, edited by Miami

Theory Collec-

tive. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991.

. De Dieu qui vient à l'idée. Paris: Vrin, 1982.

Nancy, Jean-Luc, and Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe. The Title of the

. De l'existence à l'existant. Paris: Vrin, 1 9 7 3 .

Letter. Translated by Francois Raffoul and David Pettigrew.

. Ethics and Infinity. Translated by Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1985. . Éthique et Infini. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard et Radio-France, 1982. . Existence and Existents. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1978. . Face to Face with Lévinas. Edited by Richard A. Cohen. Albany: State University of N e w York Press, 1986. . The Lévinas Reader. Edited by Sean H a n d . Cambridge: Basil Balckwell, 1989. . Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1 9 8 1 . . "Philosophy and Awakening," translated by M a r y Quaintance. In Who Comes After the Subject?, edited by Eduardo Cadava, Peter Connor, and Jean-Luc Nancy. N e w York: Routledge, 1 9 9 1 . . "La réalité et son o m b r e . " Les Temps Modernes 4, n o . 38 (November 1948). . Sur Maurice Blanchot. Montpellier: Fata M o r g a n a , 1 9 7 5 . . Totalité et Infini. The Hague: Martinus Nujhoff, 1 9 6 1 . . Totality and Infinity. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1969. Libertson, Joseph. Proximity: Lévinas, Blanchot, Bataille: Communication. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1 9 8 2 . Llewelyn, John. "Lévinas, Derrida and Others Vis-à-vis." In The Provocation of Lévinas, edited by Robert Bernasconi and David Wood. N e w York: Routledge, 1 9 8 8 . Nancy, Jean-Luc. The Inoperative Community. Translated by Peter Connor, Lisa Garbus, Michael Holland, and Simona Sawhney. Theory and History of Literature ser. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1 9 9 1 .

Albany: State University of N e w York Press, 1992. Proust, Marcel. Remembrance of Things Past. Translated by C. K. Scott Moncrieff and Terence Kilmartin. N e w York: R a n d o m House, 1981. Richardson, William J., S.J. Heidegger: Through Phenomenology to Thought. The H a g u e : Martinus Nijhoff, 1 9 6 3 . Sartre, Jean-Paul. The Transcendence of the Ego. Translated by Forrest Williams and Robert Kirkpatrick. N e w York: Hill and Wang, 1990. Shaviro, Steven. Passion and Excess: Blanchot, Bataille, and Literary Theory. Tallahasee: The Florida State University Press, 1990. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. N e w York: Macmillan, 1 9 6 8 . . Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.

Index

Agamben, Giorgio: La communità che viene (The Corning Community), 9, 29, 93-94, 121-62; // linguaggio e la morte (Language and Death), 129-31, 178n. 28; Infanzia e storia (Infancy and History), 158-62 an-archic, 43, 63, 78, 156 anarchy, 34, 43, 52-53, 59 Artaud, Antonin, 122-23 artwork, 3-4, 65, 93-99, 103-4, 118-21; as image, 4, 13-30, 66-70, 76, 106-14 Autrui (Other), xii, 1-2, 4, 8, 3 0 64, 7 7 , 1 0 4 - 5 , 1 1 4 , 170n. 36 Badiou, Alain, 123, 151 Balthus, 122-23,136 Bataille, Georges, 31-33, 47, 5 3 54, 57, 59-60, 63, 78 being-in-language, 1, 29, 76, 131— 32,134, 148, 153

Benjamin, Walter, 153-54 Benveniste, Emile, 158-60 Blanchot, Maurice: L'Arrêt de mort (Death Sentence), x, xiv, 9, 76-93, 99-106,111,118-19, 129; L'Attente L'Oubli (Awaiting Oblivion), xiv, 89; "Les caractères de l'œvre de l'art" ("Characteristics of the Work of Art"), 67-70; Celui qui ne m'accompagnait pas (The One Who Was Standing Apart From Me), xi; La Communauté inavouble (The Unavowable Community), 56; "Les Deux Versions de l'imaginaire" ("Two Versions of the Imaginary"), 72; L'Espace littéraire (The Space of Literature), 10, 92; Le Pas au-delà (The Step Not Beyond), 101-2; "Pour l'amitié," xi; "La Solitude 189

Blanchot, Maurice (continued)', essentielle" ("The Essential Solitude"), 115-17, 161; Thomas L'Obscur (Thomas the Obscure), 161 Bogart, Humphrey, 136 Borch-Jacobsen, Mikkel, 33, 40, 44-45, 168n. 14 Brennan, Walter, 132 Cagney, James, 132 Casablanca, 136 Celan, Paul, 10-11 Chaney, Lon, 132 character actors, 132-38 Congreve, William, 11-12 Cook, Elisha, Jr., 132 Cotton, Joseph, 136 Da-Sein, 2, 44, 49, 59-64, 148-52, 159 Davis, Lydia, x, 86 death. See dying (and death) Deleuze, Gilles, 123 Derrida, Jacques, 4 1 , 63, 74, 84, 111 désœvrement (work-less), 87 diachronie (diachrony), 34-36, 4 6 47, 49-50, 63,104 dying (and death), 4, 24-25, 5 7 64, 92-103 ego. See self en deçà du temps (hither side of time), 25, 40, 7 7 , 8 8 , 9 3 - 1 0 6 , 110,112, 115,150,152. See also I'entretemps Ventretemps (meanwhile, betweentime), 22-25, 27, 93-106,127, 152. See also en deçà du temps ethics (éthique), xii, 3, 8, 31-64, 77, 97, 104-5,113

EXLITENCT, 2, S N , <,S

aetthi in , i'i

66,

70-74;

2 1 , 2 9 - 3 0 , (><>

finitude, 8- 9, I! $4, 56-64, 73 Flesch, William, I69n. 32 Foucault, Michel, 100 Freud, Sigmund, xi-xiv, 32, 36, 40, 43-46, 97, 117 Gleason, Jackie, 138 God, 140-42, 150, 151-53 Greenstreet, Sydney, 138 Hackman, Gene, 137 Hamann, Johann Georg, 158 Hegel, G. W. F., 44, 78, 97-98, 129-30 Heidegger, Martin, 2, 9, 33, 36, 38, 44, 49, 60, 67-68, 75-76, 78, 97-98, 111, 130-31, 168n. 9; "Brief über den Humanismus," 148; and ethics, 62-64; Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, 13852, 156-62 Henry, Michel, 38, 168n. 14 Hill, Leslie, ix Hulk Hogan, 6 Hume, David, x, 142 Husserl, Edmund, 104 identification, 4, 37-40, 42^18, 55 il (He, the Neuter), 5, 36, 7 9 , 1 1 2 14,115-19 il y a (there is), 9, 27-30, 65, 7 0 73, 111, 116-17,124,149, 152, 161 image, 1-2, 4, 13-17, 78, 84, 10414,123, 134-35; as resemblance, 17-21; and time, 2 2 25. See also artwork; schemaimage

Imaginary, 2,4, '>, 17, 20-21, 27, 77, 10 I 4, 108-10, 130 immemorial, I (>, 31-37, 42, 45, 74, 104, I 12-13 intersubjectivity, 96,103-5, 129. See also subject (and subjectiv•ty) ipseity, 37, 61-62, 69-70, 74, 132 Kafka, Franz, 90-91, 97 Kant, Immanuel, 8-9, 33, 74-76, 111, 119-20, 126; Critique of Pure Reason, 138-52, 156-62 Kelly, Grace, 133 Kojève, Alexandre, 44, 98 Lacan, Jacques, 40, 44,117, 158 Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe, 7, 17, 4 0 , 4 9 , 6 3 , 7 8 , 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 164 n. 9, 166n. 34 language: of ethics, 39-40, 42, 46, 55, 58, 169n. 30; and experience, 154-62; in literature and poetry, 4-5, 7, 10-12. See also being-inlanguage Levinas, Emmanuel: Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence (Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence), 4, 31-64, 77, 97, 104; De l'existence à l'existant (Existence and Existents), 66-67; "Realité et son ombre" ("Reality and Its Shadow"), 9,13-30, 66-67, 84; "La Servante et son maître" ("The Servant and Her Master"), 104-5; Totalité et Infini (Totality and Infinity), 54 love, ix-xiv, 11-12 Lyotard, Jean-François, 63, 148

Marlboro, duchesie of, 11-12 Massumi, Brian, 65 Mill, John Stuart, 33 moi. See self myth, 20, 26, 166n. 34 Nancy, Jean-Luc, 7, 40, 47, 58, 78, 166n. 34 Nessus, 31, 34 Neuter, 28, 36. See also il Nietzsche, Friedrich, xi, 36, 97, 110, 130, 149 Nihilism, 3 Olivier, Laurence, 133 Other. See Autrui oxymoron, 78 Peirce, C. S., 42

Plato, 117 politics, 3, 8, 29, 50, 155-62 potentia, 1-2, 40, 60, 7 5 , 1 4 3 , 145,161 Proust, Marcel, xiv, 4, 50; A la recherche du temps perdu, 84 proximity, 77-93 responsibility (responsibilite), x, 4, 3 1 - 3 2 , 3 8 , 4 8 , 5 9 - 6 2 , 77, 92, 105 rhythm, 14-16, 26 Richardson, William J., 75-76; Heidegger, 139-55, 179n. 38 Ritter, Thelma, 132 Roustang, Francois, 45 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 99, 125 schema-image, 74-76, 138-52 self (moi), 4, 34-46, 52, 60, 8 1 82, 106, 111 Shaviro, Steven, x, 87, 97 Smith, Queenie, 137

y

I)L

I

N

I I I'. . \

spectacle, 6, 29, 54, 57, L53 S6 Stevens, Wallace, ix-xiv subject (and subjectivity), 1-2, 4 - 5 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 3 6 , 3 8 - 4 2 , 44-49,54, 56, 62,110-14,124, 140-62. See also intersubjectivity substitution, 4, 37, 48, 50, 56-57, 61-62, 77 Tamiroff, Akim, 137 Third Man, The, 136 Tiananmen, 94, 105

time. S i r dun

In tunc; d y m j ;

(and

death); en deca da temps; Ventretemps;

image

Tolstoy, Leo, ix, 12 whatever (qualunque), xii, 94, 121-29, 151, 156 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 47 work-less. See désozvrement writing, 65-76, 79, 84-85, 92, 112-13