Below is the third and final entry from my philosophical journal addressing Jean-Francois Lyotard’s Heidegger and “the jews”. After beginning to reread Lyotard’s book in January of this year, other things intervened, such that I did not return to it for two months–hence the date below, slightly more than two months after the entry I posted here just two days ago.
After concluding my remarks on my rereading of Lyotard’s book, in the entry below I go on to consider a critique of his thought about trauma and representation by fellow French philosopher Jacques Rancière. What I say below is by no means my final word on Jacques Rancière’s critique, but it shows the extent to which, at the date of the entry, I had been able to think through some of the important issues he raises.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
For the last day or two I’ve gone back to Lyotard’s Heidegger and “the jews”, which I started reading back in January, reading through the first of the two parts of the book, “the jews,” before putting it down to go on to other things that needed my attention. Well, now I’ve gone back and reread “the jews” yet again, then went on to “Heidegger,” the second part of the book.
In going again through the first half of the book called “the jews,” I hit upon a couple of additional passages worth noting down in this journal–additional to what I put down back in January. Here they are:
P. 10: “Here [in the case of the Holocaust] to fight against forgetting means to fight to remember that one forgets as soon as one believes, draws conclusions, and holds for certain. It means to fight against forgetting the precariousness of what has been established, of the reestablished past; it is a fight for the sickness whose recovery is simulated.” Thus, for trauma as for addiction, genuine recovery is the refusal of any pretense of recovery, which is to say the refusal of any claim to be cured. In terms of the injunction “never forget,” it is precisely to refuse to countenance the idea that it is possible to remember, in the sense of “remembering” being equated with keeping a memento or memorial, in general a representation, present before one.
Then, from section 6, two passages, the first on p.19:
Whatever the invoked sense [of primal trauma, as it were–e.g., Freud’s “primal scene”] might be, in the night of time, of the individual or of the species, this scene that has not taken place, that has not had a stage, that has not even been, because it is not representable [Note how, here, he clearly qualifies what he is saying: If to be = to be represented, vorgestellt, then trauma cannot “be”] but which is, and is ex-, and will remain it whatever representations, qualifications one might make of it, with which one might endow it; this event ek-sists inside, in-sisting, as what exceeds every imaginative, conceptual, rational sequence.
Then, next page (20):
It follows that psychoanalysis, the search for lost time, can only be interminable, like literature and like true history (i.e., the one that is not historicism but anamnesis): the kind of history that does not forget that forgetting is not a breakdown of memory but the immemorial always “present” but never here-now, always torn apart in the time of consciousness, of chronology, between a too early and a too late–the too early of a first blow to the apparatus that it does not feel, and the too late of a second blow where something intolerable is felt. A soul struck without striking a blow.
Now, on to the second part of the book, “Heidegger.”
P, 51-52 (first two pages of 2nd part), invoking “another urgency,” namely, one other than that manufactured by “the politics of publishing” [at play in “the Heidegger affair”–the agitation over Heidegger’s Nazi connections that was especially disruptive in French intellectual circles in the 1980s]:
Thought can be “urgent”; indeed, this urgency is essential to its being. One is urged or pressured to think because something, an event, happens before one is able to think it. This event is not the “sensational.” Under the guise of the sensational, it is forgotten [as 9/11 was forgotten precisely in and under the immediate, even simultaneous, sensationalization of it]. In any case, the event does not “present” itself, it will have happened: thought finds itself seized and dispossessed by it according to its possibility as regards the indeterminate; it realizes its lack of preparedness for what will have come about, it understands its state of infancy. The Heidegger affair will have come to our thought in such a way; it will have found it unprepared despite denials on both sides. The urgency to investigate it when it is prescribed by the publishing powers is a way of precipitating its closure or classification. In claiming that thought is unprepared for the affair I am eager to maintain its urgency and its pressure, to leave it open to the most patient questioning.
In effect, then, “the Heidegger affair” is a trauma for thought/philosophy. What is more, isn’t that “historical” trauma traumatic for thought precisely because it crystallizes–becomes a site [for the striking of]–the “structural” trauma that births thought itself in the first place, thought itself as always traumatically structured? And, ultimately, isn’t the urge and urgency that first calls thought forth–isn’t that the urge and urgency to think trauma?
For Lyotard, “the jews” is just the name of that trauma, the trauma that calls forth thought, to be thought. And what of the thought of such thought? P. 84:
This thought has never told anything but stories of unpayable debt, transmitted little narratives, droll and disastrous, telling of the insolvency of the indebted soul. Where the Other has given credence without the command to believe, who promised without anyone ever asking anything, the Other who awaits its due. There is no need to wait for or believe in this Other. The Other waits and extends credit. One is not acquitted of its patience or its impatience by counteroffereings, sacrifices, representations, and philosophical elaborations. It is enough to tell and retell that you believe you are acquitting yourself and that you are not. Thus one remembers (and this must suffice) that one never stops forgeting what must not be forgotten, and that one is not quit either just because one does not forget the debt. . . . It is this, then, . . . that Nazism has tried to definitively forget: the debt, the difference between good and evil. It had tried to unchain the soul from this obligation, to tear up the note of credit, to render debt-free forever. And this unchaining is evil itself.
Like the debt we owe to the dead (if it is not the very same debt), the debt to God/the Other is in principle unpayable; and it is the very endeavor to pay off this debt that compunds it most.
Pp. 93-94 (last page of the book):
[T]he debt that is our only lot–the lot of forgetting neither that there is the Forgotten nor what horrors the spirit is capable of in its headlong madness to make us forget the fact. “Our” lot? Whose lot? It is the lot of this nonpeople of survivors, Jews and non-Jews, called here “the jews,” whose Being-together depends not on the authenticity of any primary roots but on that singular debt of interminable anamnesis.
The (non-)people or (non-)community of all those who have nothing in common save that each is alone in his/her own unpayable debt.
Also, I just recently read Jacques Rancière, The Future of the Image, translated by Gregory Elliott (London and New York: Verso, 2007–Fr. orig. 2003). The last chapter (#5), “Are Some Things Unrepresentable?” is, in large part, a critique of Lyotard’s Heidegger and “the jews”. I’ll begin with the summary with which he [Rancière] ends his essay, and therewith the whole book. Pp. 136-137:
I shall conclude briefly with my opening question. Some things are unrepresentable as a function of the conditions to which a subject of representation must submit if it is to be part of a determinate regime of art, a specific regime of the relations between exhibition and signification. . . . This set of conditions exclusively defines the representative regime in art. . . . If there are things which are unrepresentable, they can be located in this regime. In our regime–the aesthetic [as opposed to the representative] regime in art–this notion has no determinable content, other than the pure notion of discrepancy with the representative regime. It expresses the absence of a stable relationship between exhibition and signification. But this maladjustment tends towards more representation, not less. . . .
Anti-representative art is constitutively an art without unrepresentable things. There are no longer any inherent limits to representation, to its possibilities. This boundlessness also means that there is no longer a language form which is appropriate to a subject, whatever it might be. This lack of appropriateness runs counter both to credence in a language peculiar to art and to the affirmation of the irreducible singularity of certain events. . . . I have tried to show that this exaggeration itself merely perfects the system of rationalization it claims to denounce. . . . In order to assert an unrepresentability in art that is commensurate with an unthinkability of the event, the latter must itself have been rendered entirely thinkable, entirely neccary according to thought. The logic of unrepresentability can only be sustained by a hyperbole that ends up destroying it.
With that general summary laying out what he is arguing overall, I’ll now go back to flesh it out a bit at a few places.
P. 126: “There is no appropriate language for wintessing. Where testimony has to express the experience of the inhuman, it naturally finds an already constituted language of becoming-inhuman, of an identity between human sentiments and non-human movements.” He then gives a (very good) analysis of Lanzmann’s Shoah in terms of just how it makes use of such already available cinematic language to accomplish its tasks. On the basis of that analysis of a prime example, he then concludes (p. 129): “Nothing is unrepresentable as a property of the event.” I’m not sure whoever said it was, really. And, anyway, it all depends on what one means by “the event” here. If one means simple “datable occurrence,” then “event” itself is cut down to representational size, in effect, before one even begins. At any rate, he continues:
There are simply choices. The choice for the present as against historicization; the decision to represent an accounting of the means, the materiality of the process, as opposed to the representation of causes. The causes that render the event resistant to any explanation by a principle of sufficient reason, be it fictional or documentary, must be left on hold.
. . . And Lanzmann’s investigation is part of a cinemtaic tradition that has established its pedigree. This is the tradition that counter-poses to the light thrown on the blinding of Oedipus the simultaneously solved and unresolved mystery of Rosebud, which is the “reason” for Kane’s madness, the revelation at the end of the investigation, beyond investigation, of the nullity of the “cause”. . . . A form of investigation that reconstructs the materiality of an event while leaving its cause on hold, proves suitable to the extraordinary character of the Holocaust without being specific to it. Here again the appropriate form is also an inappropriate form. In and of itself the event neither prescribes nor proscribes any artistic means. And it does not impose any duty on art to represent, or not to represent, in some particular way.
I’m not quite sure what to make of his critique. On its own terms, his analysis is illuminating, I think. But as a critique of views such as Lyotard’s, it seems to me basically to fail. It passes Lyotard by, as it were. What it attacks is not what Lyotard is saying, so far as I can see. For instance, Lyotard himself says that something such as the Holocaust can be more effectively erased by being represented than by being simply denied. Well, that makes sense only insofar as one can represent the Holocaust. But his point is that trauma disrupts and disconnects the very business of “representation,” undercutting its claim to any sort of mastery, as it were.
As I say, I’m just not yet sure what to do with Rancière’s discussion here.