iek and Heidegger - IJS Vol 1.

WHY HEIDEGGER MADE THE RIGHT STEP1 IN 1933

Hiding the tree in a forest When, in G.K. Chestertons The Sign of the Broken Sword (a story from The Innocence of Father Brown) , !ather Brown e"#$ains the mystery to his %om#anion !$am&ea', he &egins with what e(ery&ody knows) *rth'r St. C$are was a great and s'%%essf'$ +ng$ish genera$. +(ery&ody knows that after s#$endid yet %aref'$ %am#aigns &oth in ,ndia and *fri%a he was in %ommand against Bra-i$ when the great Bra-i$ian #atriot .$i(ier iss'ed his '$timat'm. +(ery&ody knows that on that o%%asion St. C$are with a (ery sma$$ for%e atta%ked .$i(ier with a (ery $arge one, and was %a#t'red after heroi% resistan%e. *nd e(ery&ody knows that after his %a#t're, and to the a&horren%e of the %i(i$ised wor$d, St. C$are was hanged on the nearest tree. /e was fo'nd swinging there after the Bra-i$ians had retired, with his &roken sword h'ng ro'nd his ne%k.0 /owe(er, !ather Brown noti%es that something doesnt fit in this story that e(ery&ody knows) St. C$are, who was a$ways a #r'dent %ommander, more for d'ty than for dash, made a foo$ish atta%k whi%h ended in disaster1 .$i(ier, who was magnanimo's to the #oint of knight errantry and a$ways set free #risoners, %r'e$$y ki$$ed St. C$are. To a%%o'nt for this mystery, !ather Brown e(okes a meta#hor) 0Where does a wise man hide a $eaf2 ,n the forest. B't what does he do if there is no forest2 /e grows a forest to hide it in,0 said the #riest in an o&s%'re (oi%e. 0* fearf'$ sin. 343 *nd if a man had to hide a dead &ody, he wo'$d make a fie$d of dead &odies to hide it in. The deno'ement re$ies on the hy#othesis of the dark %orr'#ted side of the +ng$ish hero) Sir *rth'r St. C$are was a man who read his Bi&$e. That was what was the matter with him. When wi$$ #eo#$e 'nderstand that it is 'se$ess for a man to read his Bi&$e 'n$ess he a$so reads e(ery&ody e$se5s Bi&$e2 * #rinter reads a Bi&$e for mis#rints. * 6ormon reads his Bi&$e, and finds #o$ygamy1 a Christian S%ientist reads his, and finds we ha(e no arms and $egs. St. C$are was an o$d *ng$o7,ndian 8rotestant so$dier. 343 .f %o'rse, he fo'nd in the .$d Testament anything that he wanted 7 $'st, tyranny, treason. .h, , dare say he was honest, as yo' %a$$ it. B't what is the good of a man &eing honest in his worshi# of dishonesty2 ,n the Bra-i$ian 9'ng$e, 9'st &efore the fata$ &att$e, the Genera$ en%o'ntered an

'ne"#e%ted #ro&$em) his a%%om#anying yo'nger offi%er, 6a9or 6'rray, somehow had g'essed the hideo's tr'th1 and when they wa$ked s$ow$y in the 9'ng$e, he ki$$ed 6'rray with his sa&re. What sho'$d he now do with the &ody diffi%'$t to a%%o'nt for2 /e %o'$d make the %or#se $ess 'na%%o'nta&$e. /e %o'$d %reate a hi$$ of %or#ses to %o(er this one. ,n twenty min'tes eight h'ndred +ng$ish so$diers were mar%hing down to their death. /ere, howe(er, things went wrong for the genera$) the s'r(i(ing +ng$ish so$diers somehow g'essed what he did : it was them who ki$$ed the Genera$, not .$i(ier. .$i(ier (to whom the s'r(i(ors s'rrendered) genero's$y set them free and withdrew with his troo#s1 the s'r(i(ing so$diers then tried St. C$are and hanged him, and then, in order to sa(e the g$ory of the +ng$ish army, %o(ered '# their a%t &y the story that .$i(ier had him ki$$ed. The story ends in the s#irit of ;ohn !ords westerns whi%h #refer heroi% $egend to tr'th (re%a$$ ;ohn Waynes fina$ s#ee%h to the 9o'rna$ists a&o't the r'th$ess Genera$ #$ayed &y /enry !onda, from Fort Apache)) 6i$$ions who ne(er knew him sha$$ $o(e him $ike a father 7 this man whom the $ast few that knew him dea$t with $ike d'ng. /e sha$$ &e a saint1 and the tr'th sha$$ ne(er &e to$d of him, &e%a'se , ha(e made '# my mind at $ast. Whi%h, then, is the /ege$ian $esson of this story2 ,s it that the sim#$e %yni%a$7 den'n%iatory reading sho'$d &e re9e%ted2 ,s it that the ga-e whi%h red'%es the Genera$s %orr'#tion to the tr'th of his #ersona$ity is itse$f mean and &ase2 /ege$ des%ri&ed $ong ago this tra# as that of the Bea'tif'$ So'$ whose ga-e red'%es a$$ great heroi% deeds to the #ri(ate &ase motifs of their #er#etrators) <o hero is a hero to his (a$et, not, howe(er, &e%a'se the hero is not a hero, &'t &e%a'se the (a$et is = the (a$et, with whom the hero has to do, not as a hero, &'t as a man who eats, drinks, and dresses, who, in short, a##ears as a #ri(ate indi(id'a$ with %ertain #ersona$ wants and ideas of his own. ,n the same way, there is no a%t in whi%h that #ro%ess of 9'dgment %annot o##ose the #ersona$ as#e%t of the indi(id'a$ity to the 'ni(ersa$ as#e%t of the a%t, and #$ay the #art of the >mora$ (a$et towards the agent?. ,s, then, !ather Brown, if not this kind of mora$ (a$et to the Genera$, then, at $east, a %yni% who knows that the 'n#$easant tr'th has to &e %o(ered '# on &eha$f of the #'&$i% Good2 Chestertons theo$ogi%a$ finesse is dis%erni&$e in the way he a$$o%ates the res#onsi&i$ity for the Genera$s grad'a$ downfa$$) it is not the Genera$s &etraya$ of Christian faith &e%a'se of his mora$ %orr'#tion d'e to the #redominan%e of &ase materia$ist motifs. Chesterton is wise eno'gh to de#i%t the %a'se of the Genera$s mora$ downfa$$ as inherent to Christianity) the Genera$ was a man who read his Bi&$e. That was what was the matter with him. ,t was the #arti%'$ar : 8rotestant, in this %ase : reading that is to &e he$d res#onsi&$e. *nd %an one not say the same a&o't /eideggers (&'t a$so *dorno and /orkheimers, *gam&ens e(en) attem#t to #'t the &$ame for the ethi%o7#o$iti%a$ %atastro#hies of the @@th %ent'ry on the entire tradition of Western meta#hysi%s with its instr'menta$ Aeason, et%., $eading in a straight $ine from 8$ato to <ato (or, rather, g'$ag)2 S$oterdi9k wrote a&o't the Beftist g$o&a$ #ro&$emati-ing of Western %i(i$i-ation) Thro'gh the &o'nd$ess forms of %'$t'ra$ %riti%ism : say, the red'%tion of *'s%hwit&a%k to B'ther and 8$ato, or the %rimina$i-ation of the Western %i(i$i-ation in its entirety 7 one tries to &$'r the tra%es whi%h &etray how %$ose to a %$ass7geno%idi%a$ system we o'rse$(es were standing.C

The on$y thing one sho'$d add here is that the same goes a$so for /eidegger and other e"7!as%ists) they a$so hid their <a-i %or#se in the mo'ntain of %or#ses %a$$ed Western meta#hysi%s4 *nd sho'$d one not re9e%t in the same way, as a too hasty genera$i-ation, the $i&era$ %ommon wisdom a%%ording to whi%h #hi$oso#hers in #o$iti%s stand for a %atastro#hi% misfort'ne2 Starting with 8$ato, they either misera&$y fai$ or s'%%eed4 in s'##orting tyrants. The reason, so the story goes on, is that #hi$oso#hers try to im#ose their <otion on rea$ity, (io$ating it 7 no wonder that, from 8$ato to /eidegger, they are reso$'te$y anti7demo%rati% (with the e"%e#tion of some em#iri%ists and #ragmatists), dismissing the %rowd of #eo#$e as the (i%tim of so#hists, at the mer%y of %ontingent #$'ra$ity4 So when the %ommon wisdom hears of 6ar"ists who defend 6ar", %$aiming that his ideas were not faithf'$$y rea$i-ed in Sta$inism, they re#$y) thank GodD ,t wo'$d ha(e &een e(en worse to f'$$y rea$i-e themD /eidegger at $east was wi$$ing to draw %onseE'en%es of his %atastro#hi% e"#erien%e and %on%eded that those who think onto$ogi%a$$y ha(e to err onti%a$$y, that the ga# is irred'%i&$e, that there is no #hi$oso#hi%a$ #o$iti%s #ro#er. ,t th's seems that G.K.Chesterton was f'$$y 9'stified in his ironi% #ro#osa$ to insta$$ a s#e%ia$ %or#s of #o$i%emen, #o$i%emen who are a$so #hi$oso#hers) ,t is their &'siness to wat%h the &eginnings of this %ons#ira%y, not mere$y in a %rimina$ &'t in a %ontro(ersia$ sense. 343 The work of the #hi$oso#hi%a$ #o$i%eman 343 is at on%e &o$der and more s'&t$e than that of the ordinary dete%ti(e. The ordinary dete%ti(e goes to #ot7ho'ses to arrest thie(es1 we go to artisti% tea7#arties to dete%t #essimists. The ordinary dete%ti(e dis%o(ers from a $edger or a diary that a %rime has &een %ommitted. We dis%o(er from a &ook of sonnets that a %rime wi$$ &e %ommitted. We ha(e to tra%e the origin of those dreadf'$ tho'ghts that dri(e men on at $ast to inte$$e%t'a$ fanati%ism and inte$$e%t'a$ %rime.F Wo'$d not thinkers as different as 8o##er, *dorno and Be(inas, a$so s'&s%ri&e to a s$ight$y %hanged (ersion of this idea, where a%t'a$ #o$iti%a$ %rime is %a$$ed tota$itarianism and the #hi$oso#hi%a$ %rime is %ondensed in the notion of tota$ity2 * straight road $eads from the #hi$oso#hi%a$ notion of tota$ity to #o$iti%a$ tota$itarianism, and the task of #hi$oso#hi%a$ #o$i%e is to dis%o(er from a &ook of 8$atos dia$og'es or a treatise on so%ia$ %ontra%t &y Ao'ssea' that a #o$iti%a$ %rime wi$$ &e %ommitted. The ordinary #o$iti%a$ #o$i%eman goes to se%ret organi-ations to arrest re(o$'tionaries1 the #hi$oso#hi%a$ #o$i%eman goes to #hi$oso#hi%a$ sym#osia to dete%t #ro#onents of tota$ity. The ordinary anti7terrorist #o$i%eman tries to dete%t those #re#aring to &$ow '# &'i$dings and &ridges1 the #hi$oso#hi%a$ #o$i%eman tries to dete%t those a&o't to de%onstr'%t the re$igio's and mora$ fo'ndation of o'r so%ieties...G This #osition is that of wisdom) a wise man knows that one sho'$d not enfor%e rea$ity, that a $itt$e &it of %orr'#tion is the &est defense against &ig %orr'#tion4 Christianity is in this sense anti7wisdom par excellence) a %ra-y wager on Tr'th, in %ontrast to #aganism whi%h, '$timate$y, %o'nts on wisdom (e(erything ret'rns to d'st, the Whee$ of Bife goes on fore(er4). The fatef'$ $imitation of this stan%e of wisdom resides in the forma$ism that #ertains to the notion of &a$an%e, of a(oiding the e"tremes. When one hears form'$as $ike we need neither tota$ state %ontro$ nor tota$$y non7 reg'$ated $i&era$ism3indi(id'a$ism, &'t the right meas're &etween these two e"tremes, the #ro&$em that immediate$y #o#s '# is the measure of this measure : the #oint of

&a$an%e is a$ways si$ent$y #res'##osed. Say, what if some&ody says) We need neither too m'%h res#e%t for ;ews, nor the <a-i ho$o%a'st, &'t the right meas're in &etween, some E'otas for 'ni(ersities and #rohi&ition of #'&$i% offi%es for the ;ews to #re(ent their e"%essi(e inf$'en%e, one %annot rea$$y answer him at a #'re$y forma$ $e(e$. /ere we ha(e the forma$ism of wisdom) the tr'e task is to transform the meas're itse$f, not on$y to os%i$$ate &etween the e"tremes of the meas're. ,n his otherwise admira&$e Holy Terror, Terry +ag$eton seems to fa$$ into the same tra# when he de#$oys the pharmakos dia$e%ti% of the e"%ess of the Sa%red, of the /o$y Terror as the e"%ess of the Aea$ whi%h sho'$d &e res#e%ted, satisfied, &'t ke#t at distan%e. The Aea$ is sim'$taneo's$y generati(e and destr'%ti(e) destr'%ti(e if gi(en free rein, &'t a$so destr'%ti(e if denied (+'ri#ides, Ba%%hantes : no wonder that women ki$$ the king, s'%h a Thing is '$timate$y feminine4), sin%e its (ery denia$ 'n$eashes a f'ry whi%h imitates it : o##osites %oin%ide. +ag$eton here #er%ei(es a$so !reedom as s'%h a pharmakos, destr'%ti(e when 'n$eashed4 ,s, howe(er, this not a$$ too %$ose to a %onser(ati(e Wisdom2 ,s it not the s'#reme irony here that +ag$eton, arg'a&$y the shar#est and most #ers#i%'o's %riti% of #ostmodernism, dis#$ays here his own se%ret #ostmodern &ias, endorsing one of the great #ostmodern motifs, that of the Aea$ Thing towards whi%h one sho'$d maintain a #ro#er distan%e2 <o wonder +ag$eton #rofesses his sym#athy for %onser(ati(es $ike B'rke and his %ritiE'e of !ren%h Ae(o$'tion) not that it was 'n9'st, et%., &'t that it e"#osed the fo'nding e"%essi(e (io$en%e of the $ega$ order, &ringing to $ight and re7ena%ting what sho'$d &e at a$$ %osts %on%ea$ed : this is the f'n%tion of traditiona$ myths. Ae9e%tion of these myths, re$ian%e on #'re Aeason %riti%a$ of tradition, there&y ne%essari$y ends '# in the madness and destr'%ti(e orgy of Hnreason.I Where does Ba%an stand with regard to this %om#$e" to#i% %o(ered &y the &oring and st'#id designation the so%ia$ ro$e of inte$$e%t'a$s2 Ba%ans theory, of %o'rse, %an &e 'sed to throw a new $ight on n'mero's #o$iti%o7ideo$ogi%a$ #henomena, &ringing to the $ight the hidden $i&idina$ e%onomy that s'stains them1 &'t we are asking here a more &asi% and naJ(e E'estion) does Ba%ans theory im#$y a #re%ise #o$iti%a$ stan%e2 Some Ba%anians (and not on$y Ba%anians) endea(or to demonstrate that the Ba%anian theory dire%t$y gro'nds demo%rati% #o$iti%s (say, Kannis Sta(rakakis). The terms are we$$7 known) there is no &ig .ther means the so%io7sym&o$i% order is in%onsistent, no '$timate g'arantee, and demo%ra%y is the way to integrate into the edifi%e of #ower this $a%k of '$timate fo'ndation. ,nsofar as a$$ organi% (isions of a harmonio's Who$e of so%iety re$y on a fantasy, demo%ra%y th's a##ears to offer a #o$iti%a$ stan%e whi%h tra(erses fantasy, i.e., whi%h reno'n%es the im#ossi&$e idea$ of non7antagonisti% So%iety. The #o$iti%a$ theorist who ser(es as a key referen%e here is C$a'de Befort, who was himse$f inf$'en%ed &y Ba%an and 'ses Ba%anian terms in his definition of demo%ra%y) demo%ra%y admits the ga# &etween sym&o$i% (the em#ty #$a%e of #ower) and rea$ (the agent who o%%'#ies this #$a%e), #ost'$ating that no em#iri%a$ agent nat'ra$$y fits the em#ty #$a%e of #ower. .ther systems are in%om#$ete, they ha(e to engage in %om#romises, in o%%asiona$ shake7'#s, to f'n%tion1 demo%ra%y e$e(ates in%om#$eteness in #rin%i#$e, it instit'tiona$i-es the reg'$ar shake7'# in the g'ise of e$e%tions. ,n short, S(&arred *) is the signifier of demo%ra%y. Lemo%ra%y goes here f'rther than the %ommon rea$isti% wisdom a%%ording to whi%h, in order to a%t'a$i-e a %ertain #o$iti%a$ (ision, one sho'$d a$$ow for %on%rete 'n#redi%ta&$e %ir%'mstan%es and &e ready to make %om#romises, to $ea(e the s#a%e o#en for #eo#$es (i%es and

im#erfe%tions : demo%ra%y t'rns im#erfe%tion itse$f into a notion. /owe(er, one sho'$d &ear in mind that the demo%rati% s'&9e%t, whi%h emerges thro'gh a (io$ent a&stra%tion from a$$ its #arti%'$ar roots and determinations, is the Ba%anian &arred s'&9e%t, M, whi%h is as s'%h foreign to, in%om#ati&$e with, en9oyment) Lemo%ra%y as em#ty #$a%e means for 's) the s'&9e%t of demo%ra%y is a &arred s'&9e%t. .'r sma$$ a$ge&ra ena&$es 's to gras# immediate$y that this $ea(es o't the sma$$ (a). That is to say) a$$ that hinges on the #arti%'$arity of en9oyments. The em#ty &arred s'&9e%t of demo%ra%y finds it diffi%'$t to $ink itse$f to a$$ that goes on, forms itse$f, trem&$es, in a$$ that we designate with this %omforta&$e sma$$ $etter, the sma$$ (a). 3 We are to$d) on%e there is the em#ty #$a%e, e(ery&ody, if he res#e%ts the $aws, %an &ring in his traditions and his (a$'es. 343 /owe(er, what we know is that, effe%ti(e$y, the more demo%ra%y is em#ty, the more it is a desert of en9oyment, and, %orre$ati(e$y, the more en9oyment %ondenses itse$f in %ertain e$ements. 343 the more the signifier is >disaffe%ted, as others #'t it, the more the signifier is #'rified, the more it im#oses itse$f in the #'re form of $aw, of ega$itarian demo%ra%y, of the g$o&a$i-ation of the market, 343 the more #assion a'gments itse$f, the more hatred intensifies, integrisms m'$ti#$y, destr'%tion e"tends itse$f, massa%res witho't #re%edents are a%%om#$ished, and 'nheard7of %atastro#hes o%%'r.N What this means is that the demo%rati% em#ty #$a%e and the dis%o'rse of tota$itarian f'$$ness are stri%t$y %orre$ati(e, the two sides of the same %oin) it is meaning$ess to #$ay one against the other and ad(o%ate a radi%a$ demo%ra%y whi%h wo'$d a(oid this 'n#$easant s'##$ement. So when Beftists de#$ore the fa%t that today on$y the Aight has the #assion, is a&$e to #ro#ose a new mo&i$i-ing imaginary, and that the Beft on$y administers, what they do not see is the str'%t'ra$ ne%essity of what they #er%ei(e as a mere ta%ti%a$ weakness of the Beft. <o wonder that the +'ro#ean #ro9e%t whi%h is wide$y de&ated today fai$s to engage, to raise #assions) it is '$timate$y a #ro9e%t of administration, not of ideo$ogi%a$ #assion. The on$y #assion is that of the Aightist defense of +'ro#e : a$$ the Beftist attem#ts to inf'se the notion of 'nited +'ro#e with #o$iti%a$ #assion ($ike the /a&ermas7Lerrida initiati(e of the S'mmer of OO?) fai$ to gain moment'm. The reason of this fai$'re is that the f'ndamenta$ist atta%hment to jouissance is the o !erse" the fantasmatic supplement" of democracy itself. What, then, to do on%e one draws the %onseE'en%es of this #n ehagen in demo%ra%y2 Some Ba%anians (and not e"%$'si(e$y Ba%anians) endea(or to attri&'te to Ba%an the #osition of an interna$ %riti% of demo%ra%y, a pro!ocateur who raises 'n#$easant E'estions witho't #ro#osing his own #ositi(e #o$iti%a$ #ro9e%t. 8o$iti%s as s'%h is here de(a$'ed as a domain of imaginary and sym&o$i% identifi%ations, as se$f &y definition in(o$(es a misre%ognition, a se$f7&$inding. Ba%an is a #ro(o%ate'r, in the $ine from So%rates to Kierkegaard, he dis%erns demo%ra%ys i$$'sions and hidden meta#hysi%a$ #res'##ositions. The o'tstanding %ase of de(e$o#ing this se%ond #osition is Wendy Brown who, a$tho'gh not Ba%anian, de#$oys an e"treme$y im#ortant and #ers#i%'o's <iet-s%hean %ritiE'e of the 8o$iti%a$$y Corre%t #o$iti%s of (i%timi-ation, of &asing ones identity on in9'ry.

A $omestication of %iet&sche BrownP reads the #ost7modern #o$iti%s of identity &ased on the wrongs %ommitted to s#e%ia$ gro'#s (the se"7gender7ra%e $ine) as an e"#ression of the am&ig'o's re$ationshi# one entertains towards the good o$d $i&era$7demo%rati% ega$itarian frame of h'man rights) one fee$s &etrayed &y it (with regard to women, &$a%ks, gays4 the 'ni(ersa$ist $i&era$ rhetori% didnt de$i(er, it masks %ontin'o's e"%$'sion and e"#$oitation), whi$e one nonethe$ess remains dee#$y atta%hed to these $i&era$ idea$s. ,n a refined ana$ysis, Brown demonstrates how the sense of mora$ o'trage emerges in order to find a #re%ario's %om#romise &etween a host of in%onsistent and o##osed attit'des (sadism and maso%hism, atta%hment and re9e%tion, &$aming the other and fee$ing ones own g'i$t). She reads mora$i-ing #o$iti%s not on$y as a sign of st'&&orn %$inging to a %ertain eE'ation of tr'th with #ower$essness, or as the a%ting o't of an in9'red wi$$, &'t as a sym#tom of a &roken histori%a$ narrati(e to whi%h we ha(e not yet forged a$ternati(es( 7 ?)) ,t is when the te$os of the good (anishes &'t the yearning for it remains that mora$ity a##ears to de(o$(e into mora$ism in #o$iti%s.( N) *fter the disintegration of the $arge, a$$7en%om#assing, Beftist narrati(es of #rogress, when #o$iti%a$ a%ti(ity disso$(ed into a m'$tit'de of identity7iss'es, the e"%ess o(er this #arti%'$ar str'gg$es %an on$y find an o't$et in im#otent mora$isti% o'trage. /owe(er, Brown makes here a %r'%ia$ ste# f'rther and de#$oys a$$ the #arado"es of demo%ra%y to the end, more radi%a$$y than Chanta$ 6o'ffe with her demo%rati% #arado". *$ready with S#ino-a and To%E'e(i$$e, it &e%omes %$ear that demo%ra%y is in itse$f in%hoate7em#ty, $a%king a firm #rin%i#$e : it needs anti7demo%rati% %ontent to fi$$ in its form1 as s'%h, it rea$$y is %onstit'ti(e$y forma$. This anti7demo%rati% %ontent is #ro(ided &y #hi$oso#hy, ideo$ogy, theory : no wonder most of the great #hi$oso#hers, from 8$ato to /eidegger, were distr'stf'$ towards demo%ra%y, if not dire%t$y anti7 demo%rati%) What if demo%rati% #o$iti%s, the most 'ntheoreti%a$ of a$$ #o$iti%a$ forms, #arado"i%a$$y reE'ires theory, reE'ires an antithesis to itse$f in &oth the form and s'&stan%e of theory, if it is to satisfy its am&ition to #rod'%e a free and ega$itarian order2(Q ) Brown de#$oys a$$ the #arado"es from this fa%t that demo%ra%y reE'ires for its hea$th a nondemo%rati% e$ement) a demo%ra%y needs a #ermanent inf$'" of anti7demo%rati% se$f7 E'estioning in order to remain a li!ing democracy, 7 the %'re for demo%ra%ys i$$s is homeo#athi%) ,f, as the m'sings of S#ino-a and To%E'e(i$$e s'ggest, demo%ra%ies tend towards %athe"is onto #rin%i#$es antitheti%a$ to demo%ra%y, then %riti%a$ s%r'tiny of these #rin%i#$es and of the #o$iti%a$ formations animated &y them is %r'%ia$ to the #ro9e%t of refo'nding or re%o(ering demo%ra%y. (Q N) Brown defines the tension &etween #o$iti%s and theory as the tension &etween the #o$iti%a$ ne%essity to fi"ate meaning, to s't're the te"t'a$ drift in a forma$ #rin%i#$e whi%h %an on$y arise &etween a%tion, and theorys #ermanent de%onstr'%tion whi%h %annot e(er &e re%'#erated in a new #ositi(e #rogram)

*mong h'man #ra%ti%es, #o$iti%s is #e%'$iar$y 'ntheoreti%a$ &e%a'se the &ids for #ower that %onstit'te it are ne%essari$y at odds with the theoreti%a$ #ro9e%t of o#ening '# meaning, of >making meaning s$ide, in St'art /a$$s words. Lis%'rsi(e #ower f'n%tions &y %on%ea$ing the terms of its fa&ri%ation and hen%e its ma$$ea&i$ity and %ontingen%y1 dis%o'rse fi"es meaning &y nat'ra$i-ing it, or e$se %eases to ha(e sway as dis%o'rse. This fi"ing or nat'ra$i-ing of meanings is the ne%essary idiom in whi%h #o$iti%s takes #$a%e. +(en the #o$iti%s of de%onstr'%ti(e dis#$a%ement im#$i%ates s'%h normati(ity, at $east #ro(isiona$$y. (Q 7Q ?) Theoreti%a$ ana$yses whi%h 'nearth the %ontingent and in%onsistent nat're and $a%k of '$timate fo'ndation of a$$ normati(e %onstr'%ts and #o$iti%a$ #ro9e%ts, are anti7#o$iti%a$ endea(ors insofar as ea%h desta&i$i-es meaning witho't #ro#osing a$ternati(e %odes or instit'tions. Ket ea%h may a$so &e essentia$ in s'staining an e"isting demo%rati% regime &y re9'(enating it.(Q N) ,t is th's as if Brown is #ro#osing a kind of Kantian %ritiE'e of the de%onstr'%ti(e (anti7demo%rati%) reason, disting'ishing &etween its $egitimate and i$$egitimate 'se) it is $egitimate to 'se it as a negati(e$y7reg'$ati(e %orre%ti(e, a #ro(o%ation, et%., &'t it is i$$egitimate to 'se it as a %onstit'ti(e #rin%i#$e to &e dire%t$y a##$ied to rea$ity as a #o$iti%a$ #rogram or #ro9e%t. Brown dis%erns the same am&ig'o's $ink in the re$ationshi# &etween state and #eo#$e) in the same way demo%ra%y needs anti7demo%ra%y to re9'(enate itse$f, the state needs #eo#$es resistan%e to re9'(enate itse$f) .n$y thro'gh the state are the #eo#$e %onstit'ted as a #eo#$e1 on$y in resistan%e to the state do the #eo#$e remain a #eo#$e. Th's, 9'st as demo%ra%y reE'ires antidemo%rati% %ritiE'e in order to remain demo%rati%, so too the demo%rati% state may reE'ire demo%rati% resistan%e rather than fea$ty if it is not to &e%ome the death of demo%ra%y. Simi$ar$y, demo%ra%y may reE'ire theorys #ro(ision of 'n$i(a&$e %ritiE'es and 'nrea%ha&$e idea$s. (Q?I) /ere, howe(er, in this #ara$$e$ &etween the two %o'#$es of demo%ra%y3antidemo%ra%y and state3#eo#$e, Browns arg'mentation as it were gets %a'ght in a strange sym#toma$ dynami% of re(ersa$s) whi$e demo%ra%y needs antidemo%rati% %ritiE'e to remain a$i(e, to shake its fa$se %ertainties, the demo%rati% state needs demo%rati% resistan%e of the #eo#$e, not antidemo%rati% resistan%e. Loes Brown not %onfo'nd here two (or, rather, a who$e series of) resistan%es to demo%rati% state) the antidemo%rati% e$itist theoreti%ians resistan%e (8$ato7<iet-s%he7/eidegger), the #o#'$ar demo%rati% resistan%e against the ins'ffi%ient$y demo%rati% %hara%ter of the state, et%.2 !'rthermore, is not ea%h of these two resistan%es not a%%om#anied &y its dark shadowy do'&$e) the &r'ta$ %yni%a$ e$itism that 9'stifies those in #ower1 the (io$ent o't&'rsts of a ra&&$e. *nd what if the two 9oin hands, what if we ha(e anti'democratic resistance of the people themsel!es (a'thoritarian #o#'$ism)2 !'rthermore, does Brown not dismiss a$$ too $ight$y anti7demo%rati% theorists $ike <iet-s%he as #ro#osing 'n$i(a&$e %ritiE'es of demo%ra%y2 What if nonethe$ess a regime %omes that endea(ors to $i(e them, $ike <a-ism2 ,s it not too sim#$e to re$ie(e <iet-s%he of res#onsi&i$ity &y %$aiming that the <a-is distorted his tho'ght2 .f %o'rse they did, &'t so did Sta$inism distort 6ar", so did e(ery theory %hange (was &etrayed) in its #ra%ti%o7#o$iti%a$ a##$i%ation, and a /ege$ian #oint to &e made here is that, in s'%h %ases, the tr'th is not sim#$y on the side of theory : what if the attem#t to a%t'a$i-e a

theory renders (isi&$e the o&9e%ti(e %ontent of this theory, %on%ea$ed from the ga-e of the theorist itse$f2 The weakness of Browns des%ri#tion is #erha#s that she $o%ates the 'ndemo%rati% ingredient that kee#s demo%ra%y a$i(e on$y in %ra-y theoreti%ians E'estioning its fo'ndations from 'n$i(a&$e #remises : &'t what a&o't the (ery A+*B 'ndemo%rati% e$ements that s'stain demo%ra%y2 Loes therein not reside the ma9or #remise of !o'%a'$ts (Browns ma9or referen%e) ana$yses of modern #ower) demo%rati% #ower has to &e s'stained &y a %om#$e" network of %ontro$$ing and reg'$ating me%hanisms2 ,n his %otes Towards a $efinition of (ulture, T.S.+$iot, this ar%hety#a$ no&$e %onser(ati(e, %on(in%ing$y arg'ed that a strong aristo%rati% %$ass is a ne%essary ingredient of a feasi&$e demo%ra%y) the highest %'$t'ra$ (a$'es %an on$y thri(e if they are transmitted thro'gh a %om#$e" and %ontin'o's fami$ia$ and gro'# &a%kgro'nd. So when Brown %$aims that demo%ra%y reE'ires antidemo%rati% %ritiE'e in order to remain demo%rati%, a $i&era$ %onser(ati(e wo'$d dee#$y agree in their warnings against de6.A+%ra%y) there sho'$d &e a tension in the o##osition &etween state and demo%ra%y, a state sho'$d not sim#$y &e disso$(ed in demo%ra%y, it sho'$d retain the e"%ess of 'n%onditiona$ #ower .R+A the #eo#$e, a firm r'$e of $aw, to #re(ent its own disso$'tion. ,f the state, demo%rati% as it is, is not s'stained &y this s#e%ter of the 'n%onditiona$ e"er%ise of #ower, it does not ha(e the a'thority to f'n%tion) #ower is &y definition in e"%ess, otherwise it is not #ower. The E'estion here is) who is s'##$ementing whom2 ,s demo%ra%y a s'##$ement to the f'ndamenta$$y non7demo%rati% state #ower, or is 'ndemo%rati% theory a s'##$ement to demo%ra%y2 *t what #oint does here the #redi%ate re(erse into s'&9e%t2 !'rthermore, a#ro#os sto##ing the s$iding of meaning, does non7demo%rati% theory as a r'$e not arti%'$ate its horror at demo%ra%y #re%ise$y &e%a'se it #er%ei(es it as too so#histi% (for 8$ato4), too in(o$(ed in s$iding of meaning, so that theory, far from re#roa%hing demo%ra%y for the fi"ity of meaning, it des#erate$y wants to im#ose a sta&$e order on so%ia$ $ife2 *nd, f'rthermore, is this in%essant s$iding of meaning not something that is a$ready a feat're of %a#ita$ist e%onomy itse$f whi%h, in its %ontem#orary dynami%s, raises to a new degree 6ar"s o$d motto of disso$(ing a$$ fi"ed identities2 The homeo#athi% $ogi% e(oked &y Brown is th's am&ig'o's. .n the one hand, the remedy against ossified state demo%ra%y is e"terna$ theoreti%a$ antidemo%rati% %ritiE'e whi%h shatters its %ertainties and re9'(enates it1 howe(er, at the same time, there is the o##osite homeo#athy) as the saying goes, the on$y tr'e remedy against the o&(io's demo%rati% i$$s is more of demo%ra%y itse$f. This defense of demo%ra%y is a (ariation of Ch'r%hi$$s o$d E'i# on how it is the worst of a$$ systems, the on$y #ro&$em &eing that there is none &etter) the demo%rati% #ro9e%t is in%onsistent, in its (ery notion an 'nfinished #ro9e%t, &'t its (ery #arado" is its strength, a g'arantee against tota$itarian tem#tation. Lemo%ra%y in%$'des its im#erfe%tion in its (ery notion, whi%h is why the on$y %'re against demo%rati% defi%ien%ies is more demo%ra%y. *nd a$$ dangers that $'rk in demo%ra%y %an &e de(e$o#ed as gro'nded in these %onstit'ti(e in%onsisten%ies of the demo%rati% #ro9e%t, as ways of dea$ing with these in%onsisten%ies, with the #ri%e that, in trying to get rid of the im#erfe%tions of demo%ra%y, of its non7demo%rati% ingredients, we inad(ertent$y $ose demo%ra%y itse$f : re%a$$ 9'st how the #o#'$ist a##ea$ to a dire%t e"#ression of the #eo#$es genera$ Wi$$, &y7#assing a$$ #arti%'$ar interests and #etty %onf$i%ts, ends '# stif$ing demo%rati% $ife itse$f. ,n a /ege$ian mode, one is th's tem#ted to %$assify Browns (ersion as the e"treme aggra(ation of the demo%rati% #arado" to its dire%t se$f7in%onsisten%y. What, then, wo'$d ha(e &een the (re)so$'tion of this o##osition &etween thesis (Ba%an as a theorist of demo%ra%y) and

antithesis (Ba%an as its interna$ %riti%)2 The risky &'t ne%essary gest're of rendering #ro&$emati% the (ery notion of demo%ra%y, of mo(ing e$sewhere : of taking the risk of e$a&orating a #ositi(e li!a le #ro9e%t &eyond demo%ra%y. ,s Brown not a$$ too 'n7<iet-s%hean in her red'%tion : domesti%ation e(en 7 of <iet-s%he to a #ro(o%ati(e %orre%tion to demo%ra%y whi%h, thro'gh his e"aggeration, renders (isi&$e the in%onsisten%ies and weaknesses of the demo%rati% #ro9e%t2 When she #ro%$aims <iet-s%hes im#$i%it (and a$so e"#$i%it) anti7demo%rati% #ro9e%t 'n$i(a&$e, does she not there&y a$$ too g$i&$y #ass o(er the fa%t that there were (ery rea$ #o$iti%a$ #ro9e%ts whi%h dire%t$y referred to <iet-s%he, '# to <a-ism, and that <iet-s%he himse$f did refer %onstant$y to a%t'a$ #o$iti%a$ e(ents aro'nd him : say, the s$a(e re&e$$ion that shattered him was the 8aris Comm'ne.QO Brown th's a%%om#$ishes a domestication of <iet-s%he, the transformation of his theory into an e"er%ise in inherent transgression) #ro(o%ations whi%h are not rea$$y meant serio's$y, &'t aim, thro'gh their #ro(o%ati(e %hara%ter, to awaken 's from the demo%rati%7dogmati% s$'m&er and th's %ontri&'te to the re(ita$i-ation of demo%ra%y itse$f4 This is how the esta&$ishment $ikes s'&(ersi(e theorists to &e) t'rned into harm$ess gadf$ies who &ite 's and th's awaken 's to in%onsisten%ies and im#erfe%tion of o'r demo%rati% enter#rise : God for&id to take their #ro9e%t serio's$y and try to $i(e them4 )ichel Foucault and the Iranian *!ent .ne of the main anti7tota$itarian %$i%hSs is that of inte$$e%t'a$s (in the infamo's 8a'$ ;ohnsons sense of the term) sed'%ed &y the a'thenti% to'%h of (io$ent s#e%ta%$es and o't&'rsts, in $o(e with r'th$ess e"er%ise of #ower whi%h s'##$ements their wim#y e"isten%e : the $ong $ine from 8$ato and Ao'ssea' to /eidegger, not to mention the standard $ist of the d'#es of Sta$inism (Bre%ht, Sartre4). The easy Ba%anian defen%e against this %harge wo'$d ha(e &een to #oint o't how the $east one %an say a&o't Ba%anian #sy%hoana$ysis is that it renders 's imm'ne to s'%h tota$itarian tem#tations) no Ba%anian e(er %ommitted a simi$ar #o$iti%a$ &$'nder of &eing sed'%ed &y a mirage of tota$itarian re(o$'tion4 /owe(er, instead of s'%h an easy way o't, one sho'$d rather heroi%a$$y ass'me this white inte$$e%t'a$s &'rden. Bet 's a##roa%h it at its most #ro&$emati%. The %onto'rs of the de&ate a&o't the stat's of /eideggers <a-i engagement (was it 9'st a #assing mistake of no theoreti%a$ signifi%an%e or was it gro'nded in his tho'ght itse$f1 did it %ontri&'te to the t'rn /eideggers tho'ght took afterwards) are strange$y reminis%ent of 6i%he$ !o'%a'$ts &rief engagement on &eha$f of the ,ranian re(o$'tion.QQ /ow %o'$d the fo$$owing $ines 7 6any s%ho$ars of !o'%a'$t (iew these writings 3on ,ran3 as a&errant or the #rod'%t of a #o$iti%a$ mistake. We s'ggest that !o'%a'$ts writings on ,ran were in fa%t %$ose$y re$ated to his genera$ theoreti%a$ writings on the dis%o'rse of #ower and the ha-ards of modernity. We a$so arg'e that !o'%a'$ts e"#erien%e in ,ran $eft a $asting im#a%t on his s'&seE'ent oe'(re and that one %annot 'nderstand the s'dden t'rn in !o'%a'$ts writings in the QPNOs witho't re%ogni-ing the signifi%an%e of the ,ranian e#isode and his more genera$ #reo%%'#ation with the .rient.Q 7 not e(oke a striking #ara$$e$ with /eidegger2 ,n &oth %ases, one sho'$d in(ert the standard narrati(e a%%ording to whi%h, the erroneo's engagement awakened the thinker

to the $imitations of his #re(io's theoreti%a$ #osition and %om#e$$ed him to radi%a$i-e his tho'ght, to ena%t a t'rn that wo'$d #re(ent s'%h mistakes to o%%'r again (/eideggers shift to +elassenheit, !o'%a'$ts to the aestheti% of the Se$f)) !o'%a'$ts ,ranian engagement, $ike /eideggers <a-i engagement, was in itse$f (in its form) a #ro#er gest're, the &est thing he did, the on$y #ro&$em &eing that it was (as to its %ontent) an engagement in the wrong dire%tion. Aather than re#roa%h !o'%a'$t for his &$'nder, one sho'$d read his t'rn to Kant a %o'#$e of years $ater as his res#onse to this fai$ed engagement. !o'%a'$t is interested in the notion of enth'siasm as Kant de#$oys it a#ro#os the !ren%h re(o$'tion (in his (onflict of Faculties)) its tr'e signifi%an%e does not reside in what a%t'a$$y went on in 8aris : many things there were terrifying, o't&'rsts of m'rdero's #assions 7 &'t in the enth'siasti% res#onse that the e(ents in 8aris generated in the eyes of the sym#atheti% o&ser(ers a$$ aro'nd +'ro#e4 Lid !o'%a'$t there&y not #ro#ose a kind of meta7theory of his own enth'siasm a&o't the ,ranian re(o$'tion of QPIN7P2 What matters is not the misera&$e rea$ity that ens'ed the '#hea(a$s, the &$oody %onfrontations, the new o##ressi(e meas're, et%., &'t the enth'siasm that the e(ents in ,ran ga(e rise to in the e"terna$ (Western) o&ser(er, %onfirming his ho#e into the #ossi&i$ity of a new form of s#irit'a$i-ed #o$iti%a$ %o$$e%ti(e. Was ,ran then for !o'%a'$t the o&9e%t of inter#assi(e a'thenti%ity, the mythi% .ther 8$a%e where the a'thenti% ha##ens : C'&a, <i%arag'a, Bo$i(ia today4 and for whi%h Western inte$$e%t'a$s ha(e an ine"ha'sti&$e need2 : *nd, in%identa$$y, one %o'$d redeem in the same way not on$y the enth'siasm e(oked &y Sta$inist A'ssia in many Western inte$$e%t'a$s and artists in the QP?Os and QPCOs, &'t e(en the enth'siasm e(oked in those who were otherwise &itter %riti%s of Sta$inism &y the 6aoist C'$t'ra$ Ae(o$'tion) what matters is not the &r'ta$ (io$en%e and terror in China, &'t the enth'siasm generated &y this s#e%ta%$e in its Western o&ser(ers4 (*nd, why not, one %o'$d redeem a$so the fas%ination &y some Western o&ser(ers &y the <a-i Germany in the first fo'r years of /it$ers r'$e when 'nem#$oyment fe$$ ra#id$y, et%.D) /owe(er, the #ro&$em with this reading of !o'%a'$t is that, in his inter#retation of the ,ranian e(ents, !o'%a'$t t'rns this #ers#e%ti(e aro'nd and o##oses the enth'siasm of those engaged in the e(ent to the %o$d (iew of the e"terna$ o&ser(er who dis%erns the $arger %a'sa$ %onte"t, the inter#$ay of %$asses and their interests, et%. This shift of the enth'siasm aro'sed in an e"terna$ o&ser(er to the enth'siasm of those %a'ght in the e(ents is %r'%ia$ 7 how are we to think the $ink of these two $o%ations of enth'siasm, the enth'siasm of dire%t #arti%i#ants and the enth'siasm of e"terna$ and disengaged (disinterested) o&ser(ers2 The on$y so$'tion is to de%onstr'%t the (ery immedia%y of the $i(ed e"#erien%e of the dire%t #arti%i#ants) what if this immedia%y is a$ready staged for an o&ser(er, for an imagined .thers ga-e2 What if, in their innermost $i(ed e"#erien%e, they a$ready imagine themse$(es &eing o&ser(ed2 *$ong these $ines, in his $ast te"t on ,ran (,s ,t Hse$ess to Ae(o$t2, from 6ay QPIP), !o'%a'$t o##oses the histori%a$ rea$ity of a %om#$e" #ro%ess of so%ia$, %'$t'ra$, e%onomi%, #o$iti%a$, et%., transformations to the magi% e(ent of the re(o$t whi%h somehow s's#ends the %o&we& of histori%a$ %a'sa$ity : it is irred'%i&$e to it) The man in re(o$t is '$timate$y ine"#$i%a&$e. There m'st &e an '#rooting that interr'#ts the 'nfo$ding of history, and its $ong series of reasons why, for a man rea$$y to #refer the risk of death o(er the %ertainty of ha(ing to o&ey.Q?

10

.ne sho'$d &e aware of the Kantian %onnotation of these #ro#ositions) re(o$t is an a%t of freedom whi%h momentari$y s's#ends the ne"'s of histori%a$ %a'sa$ity, i.e., in re(o$t, the no'mena$ dimension trans#ires. The #arado", of %o'rse, is that this no'mena$ dimension %oin%ides with its o##osite, with the #'re s'rfa%e of a #henomenon) the no'menon not on$y a##ears, the no'mena$ is what is, in a #henomenon, irred'%i&$e to the %a'sa$ network of rea$ity that generated this #henomenon 7 in short, noumenon is phenomenon ,ua phenomenon. There is a %$ear $ink &etween this irred'%i&$e %hara%ter of the #henomenon and Le$e'-es notion of e(ent as the f$'" of &e%oming, as a s'rfa%e emergen%e that %annot &e red'%ed to its &odi$y %a'ses. /is re#$y to the %onser(ati(e %riti%s who deno'n%e the misera&$e and e(en terrifying a%t'a$ res'$ts of a re(o$'tionary '#hea(a$ is that they remain &$ind to the dimension of &e%oming) ,t is fashiona&$e these days to %ondemn the horrors of re(o$'tion. ,t5s nothing new1 +ng$ish Aomanti%ism is #ermeated &y ref$e%tions on Cromwe$$ (ery simi$ar to #resent7day ref$e%tions on Sta$in. They say re(o$'tions t'rn o't &ad$y. B't they5re %onstant$y %onf'sing two different things, the way re(o$'tions t'rn o't histori%a$$y and #eo#$e5s re(o$'tionary &e%oming. These re$ate to two different sets of #eo#$e. 6en5s on$y ho#e $ies in a re(o$'tionary &e%oming) the on$y way of %asting off their shame or res#onding to what is into$era&$e.QC Le$e'-e refers here to re(o$'tionary e"#$osions in a way whi%h is stri%t$y #ara$$e$ to !o'%a'$t5s) The ,ranian mo(ement did not e"#erien%e the >$aw of re(o$'tions that wo'$d, some say, make the tyranny that a$ready se%ret$y inha&ited them rea##ear 'nderneath the &$ind enth'siasm of the masses. What %onstit'ted the most interna$ and the most intense$y $i(ed #art of the '#rising to'%hed, in an 'nmediated fashion, on an a$ready o(er%rowded #o$iti%a$ %hess&oard, &'t s'%h %onta%t is not identity. The s#irit'a$ity of those who were going to their deaths has no simi$arity whatsoe(er with the &$oody go(ernment of a f'ndamenta$ist %$ergy. The ,ranian %$eri%s want to a'thenti%ate their regime thro'gh the signifi%ations that the '#rising had. ,t is no different to dis%redit the fa%t of the '#rising on the gro'nds that there is today a go(ernment of m'$$ahs. ,n &oth %ases, there is >fear, fear of what 9'st ha##ened $ast !a$$ in ,ran, something of whi%h the wor$d had not seen an e"am#$e for a $ong time.QF !o'%a'$t is here effe%ti(e$y Le$e'-ian) what interests him are not the ,ranian e(ents at the $e(e$ of a%t'a$ so%ia$ rea$ity and its %a'sa$ intera%tions, &'t the e(enta$ s'rfa%e, the #'re (irt'a$ity of the s#ark of $ife whi%h on$y a%%o'nts for the 'niE'eness of the +(ent. What took #$a%e in ,ran in the intersti%e of two e#o%hs of so%ia$ rea$ity was not the e"#$osion of the 8eo#$e as a s'&stantia$ entity with a set of #ro#erties, &'t the e(ent of &e%oming78eo#$e. The #oint is th's not the shift in re$ations of #ower and domination &etween a%t'a$ so%io7#o$iti%a$ agents, the redistri&'tion of so%ia$ %ontro$, et%., &'t the (ery fa%t of trans%ending : or, rather, momentari$y %an%e$ing 7 this (ery domain, of the emergen%e of a tota$$y different domain of %o$$e%ti(e wi$$ as a #'re Sense7+(ent in whi%h a$$ differen%es are o&$iterated, rendered irre$e(ant. S'%h an e(ent is not on$y new with regard to what was going on &efore, it is new in itse$f and th's fore(er remains new.QG :

11

/owe(er, here, at their most s'&$ime, things start to get %om#$i%ated. !o'%a'$t has to %on%ede that this di(ision was interna$ to the engaged indi(id'a$s themse$(es) Bets take the a%ti(ist in some #o$iti%a$ gro'#. When he was taking #art in one of those demonstrations, he was do'&$e) he had his #o$iti%a$ %a$%'$ation, whi%h was this or that, and at the same time he was an indi(id'a$ %a'ght '# in that re(o$'tionary mo(ement, or rather that ,ranian who had risen '# against the king. *nd the two things did not %ome into %onta%t, he did not rise '# against the king &e%a'se his #arty had made this or that %a$%'$ation.QI *nd the same di(ision %'ts a%ross the entire so%ia$ &ody) at the $e(e$ of rea$ity, there were, of %o'rse, m'$ti#$e agents, %om#$e" intera%tions of %$asses, o(erdetermination of in%om#ati&$e str'gg$es1 howe(er, at the $e(e$ of the re(o$'tionary e(ent #ro#er, a$$ this was s'&$ated into an a&so$'te$y %o$$e%ti(e wi$$ that 'nited the entire so%ia$ &ody against the king and his %$iE'e. There was no di(ision within the so%ia$ &ody, no %$ass str'gg$e, a$$ : from #oor farmers to st'dents, from %$ergy to disa##ointed %a#ita$ists : wanted the same) The %o$$e%ti(e wi$$ is a #o$iti%a$ myth with whi%h 9'rists and #hi$oso#hers try to ana$y-e or to 9'stify instit'tions, et%. ,ts a theoreti%a$ too$) no&ody has e(er seen the >%o$$e%ti(e wi$$ and, #ersona$$y, , tho'ght that the %o$$e%ti(e wi$$ was $ike God, $ike the so'$, something one wo'$d ne(er en%o'nter. , dont know whether yo' agree with me, &'t we met, in Tehran and thro'gho't ,ran, the %o$$e%ti(e wi$$ of a #eo#$e.QN !o'%a'$t o##oses here re(o$t and re(o$'tion) Tre(o$'tionU (in the modern +'ro#ean sense) designates the reins%ri#tion of a re(o$t into the #ro%ess of strategi%7#o$iti%a$ %a$%'$ation) re(o$'tion is a #ro%ess &y means of whi%h the re(o$t is %o$oni-ed &y realpolitik) Ae(o$'tion ga(e these '#risings a $egitima%y, sorted o't their good and &ad forms, and defined their $aws of de(e$o#ment. 343 +(en the #rofession of re(o$'tionary was defined. By th's re#atriating re(o$t into the dis%o'rse of re(o$'tion, it was said, the '#rising wo'$d a##ear in a$$ its tr'th and %ontin'e to its tr'e %on%$'sion.QP <o wonder !o'%a'$t %om#ares the a##earing of a %o$$e%ti(e wi$$ with two of Kants no'mena$ things (God, so'$). When the no'mena$ a##ears, it is in the g'ise of '$timate horror : !o'%a'$t is aware of it) *t this stage, the most im#ortant and the most atro%io's ming$e : the e"traordinary ho#e of remaking ,s$am into a great $i(ing %i(i$i-ation and (ario's forms of (ir'$ent "eno#ho&ia, as we$$ as the g$o&a$ stakes and the regiona$ ri(a$ries. *nd the #ro&$em of im#eria$isms. *nd the s'&9'gation of women, and so on. O 3 What has gi(en the ,ranian mo(ement its intensity has &een a do'&$e register. .n the one hand, a %o$$e%ti(e wi$$ that has &een (ery strong$y e"#ressed #o$iti%a$$y and, on the other hand, the desire for a radi%a$ %hange in ordinary $ife. B't this do'&$e affirmation %an on$y &e &ased on traditions, instit'tions that %arry a %harge of %ha'(inism, nationa$ism, e"%$'si(eness, whi%h ha(e a (ery #owerf'$ attra%tion for

12

indi(id'a$s. To %onfront so fearsome an armed #ower, one m'stnt fee$ a$one, nor &egin with nothing. Q The #i%t're th's gets %om#$i%ated. !irst, !o'%a'$t withdraws from the o(era$$ s'##ort of the ,ranian re(o$t (s'stained &y a ho#e that an entire$y different so%iety wi$$ emerge o't of it, &reaking o't of the s#a%e of +'ro#ean modernity and its dead$o%ks) to asserting on$y the enth'siasti% moment of re(o$t itse$f) the +'ro#ean $i&era$s who want to dis%redit the ,ranian re(o$t &e%a'se it ended '# in an o##ressi(e regime of %$ergy mo(e at the same $e(e$ as this %$ergy itse$f whi%h is re%$aiming the re(o$t in order to 9'stify its r'$e : they &oth attem#t to red'%e the +(ent to a fa%tor in a #o$iti%a$ str'gg$e of strategi% interests. 7 Then, in a more s'&t$e and s'r#rising mo(e, !o'%a'$t dis%erns another am&ig'ity whi%h %annot &e red'%ed to the differen%e &etween the $e(e$ of #'re re(o$t and the $e(e$ of m'$ti#$e so%io7#o$iti%a$ inter#$ay) %ha'(inism, (ir'$ent "eno#ho&ia, the s'&9'gation of women, et%., are not signs of the %ontamination of the +(ent &y the so%io7#o$iti%a$ rea$ity, they are an inherent s'##ort of the +(ent itse$f, i.e., their mo&i$i-ation ga(e the +(ent the strength to o##ose itse$f to the o##ressi(e #o$iti%a$ regime and to a(oid getting %a'ght in the game of #o$iti%a$ %a$%'$ations. ,t is this (ery re$ian%e on the $owest ra%ist, anti7feminist, et%. motifs that ga(e the ,ranian re(o$'tion the strength to mo(e &eyond a mere #ragmati% #ower7str'gg$e. To #'t it in Badio'ian terms, a'thenti% +(ent th's &e%omes indisting'isha&$e from a #se'do7+(ent. *re we not dea$ing here with a kind of /ege$ian triad in whi%h the e"terna$ o##osition is grad'a$$y interna$i-ed, ref$e%ted into itse$f. !irst, the e"terna$ o##osition of the ,ranian re(o$'tion in itse$f (a 'niE'e e(ent) and the way it a##ears to +'ro#eans is interna$i-ed into the two as#e%ts of the e(ents themse$(es) their #ragmati% str'gg$e7for7 #ower side, and their side of a 'niE'e #o$iti%o7s#irit'a$ +(ent. !ina$$y, these two as#e%ts are identified as the form and %ontent of the same e(ent) the o##ressi(e misogynist ideo$ogy, anti7Semitism, et%., is the on$y ideo$ogi%a$ st'ff at the dis#osition of the ,ranians that %an s'stain the #ro#er$y meta#hysi%a$ e$ation of the +(ent : +(ent t'rns into a #'re$y forma$ feat're, indifferent towards its s#e%ifi% histori% %ontent. ,n other words, !o'%a'$t ends '# at a #oint at whi%h one sho'$d effe%ti(e$y raise the E'estion 's'a$$y addressed at Badio') why is then /it$ers <a-i re(o$'tion not a$so an +(ent2 Loes it not share the (ery feat'res attri&'ted &y !o'%a'$t to the ,ranian re(o$'tion2 Lid we not ha(e there a$so the s#irit'a$ 'nity of #eo#$e, 'ndi(ided into #arti%'$ar s'&7gro'#s se#arated &y interests, a 'nity for whi%h indi(id'a$s were ready to sa%rifi%e themse$(es2 *nd was, as in the %ase of ,ran, this s#irit of 'nity not s'stained &y the $owest e$ements of tradition (ra%ism, et%.)2 *t this #oint, the on$y mo(e that remains is to dro# this form itse$f 7 no wonder, than, that, after his ,ran e"#erien%e, !o'%a'$t withdraw to the to#i% of the Care of the Se$f, of the aestheti%s of e"isten%e (and, #o$iti%a$$y, to s'##orting different h'man rights initiati(es, whi%h makes him in !ran%e a dar$ing of the neo$i&era$7h'manitarian <ew 8hi$oso#hers). /ere, one %an on$y (ent're the hy#othesis that the %on%e#t'a$ root of this !o'%a'$ts dead$o%k is his key notion of dis#ositif. ,n a first a##roa%h, it may a##ear that Ba%ans &ig .ther is the #oorer %o'sin of what !o'%a'$t renders thro'gh the notion of dis#ositif, whi%h is m'%h more #rod'%ti(e for so%ia$ ana$ysis. /owe(er, there is the dead$o%k of dis#ositif with regard to the stat's of the s'&9e%t) first (in his history of madness), !o'%a'$t tended to e"%$'de from it the resisting %ore of s'&9e%ti(ity1 then, he shifted his #osition to its o##osite, to the radi%a$ in%$'sion of the resisting s'&9e%ti(ity into the dis#ositif (#ower itse$f generates resistan%e, et%. : the themes of his $iscipline and -unish)1 fina$$y, he tried to o't$ine the s#a%e of the %are of the se$f that a$$ows the

13

s'&9e%t to arti%'$ate thro'gh se$f7re$ating his own mode of $ife within a dis#ositif, and th's to regain a minim'm of distan%e towards it. S'&9e%t is here a$ways a %'r(e, a dist'r&an%e, of the dis#ositif, the #ro(er&ia$ d'st of grain that dist'r&s its smooth r'nning. With Ba%ans &ig .ther, the #ers#e%ti(e is the o##osite one) the (ery #ositing of the &ig .ther is a s'&9e%ti(e gest're, i.e., the &ig .ther is a (irt'a$ entity that e"ists on$y thro'gh s'&9e%ts #res'#7#osition (this moment is missing in *$th'ssers notion of ,deo$ogi%a$ State *##arat'ses with its em#hasis on the materia$ity of the &ig .ther, its materia$ e"isten%e in ideo$ogi%a$ instit'tions and rit'a$i-ed #ra%ti%es : Ba%ans &ig .ther is, on the %ontrary, '$timate$y (irt'a$ and as s'%h, in its most &asi% dimension, immateria$). /owe(er, &a%k to ,ran, !o'%a'$ts &$'nder in no way im#$ies that the ,ranian re(o$'tion was a #se'do7+(ent (in a Badio'ian sense) %om#ara&$e to the <a-i re(o$'tion) it was an a'thenti% +(ent, a momentary opening that 'n$eashed 'nheard7of for%es of so%ia$ transformation, a moment in whi%h e(erything seemed #ossi&$e. To dete%t this dimension, it is eno'gh to fo$$ow %$ose$y the shifts and re(ersa$s of the ,ranian e(ents, the grad'a$ %$osing of the m'$ti#$e modes of se$f7organi-ing of the #rotesting %rowd thro'gh the take7o(er &y the new ,s$am %$ergy #o$iti%a$ #ower. There was nothing %om#ara&$e to the effer(es%ent first months after the Shahs fa$$ : the %onstant franti% a%ti(ity, de&ates, 'to#ian #$ans, et%. : in Germany after the <a-i takeo(er (a$tho'gh there was something %om#ara&$e going on in the first years after the .%to&er re(o$'tion). .ne sho'$d not take this E'a$itati(e differen%e as something that %on%erns on$y the forma$ $e(e$ of e(ents (or, e(en worse, the gro'#7#sy%ho$ogi%a$ $e(e$, as if the ,ranian e"#$osion was more sin%ere than the <a-i one) : its %r'%ia$ dimension was that of so%io7#o$iti%a$ %ontent) what makes the ,ranian e"#$osion an +(ent was the momentary emergen%e of something <ew that #ertained to the str'gg$e to form'$ate an a$ternati(e o'tside the e"isting o#tions of Western $i&era$ demo%ra%y or a ret'rn to #remodern tradition. The <a-i re(o$'tion was ne!er o#en in this a'thenti% sense. !o'%a'$t was a$so f'$$y 9'stified in em#hasi-ing in .hia ,s$am the #otentia$ to ser(e as the ideo$ogi%a$ (ehi%$e for a demo%rati%7ega$itarian mo(ement) the o##osition .unni (ers's .hia is, in #o$iti%a$ terms, the one of the hierar%hi% state organi-ation (ers's the ega$itarian o#ening of the e(ent. ,n %ontrast to &oth ;'daism and Christianity, the two other re$igions of the Book, ,s$am e"%$'des God from the domain of the #aterna$ $ogi%) *$$ah is not a father, not e(en a sym&o$i% one : God as .ne is neither &orn nor does he gi(e &irth to %reat'res) there is no place for a Holy Family in Islam. This is why ,s$am em#hasi-es so m'%h the fa%t that 6'hammad himse$f was an or#han1 this is why, in ,s$am, God inter(enes #re%ise$y at the moments of the s's#ension, withdrawa$, fai$'re, &$a%k7o't, of the #aterna$ f'n%tion (when the mother or the %hi$d are a&andoned or ignored &y the &io$ogi%a$ father). What this means is that God remains thoro'gh$y in the domain of im#ossi&$e7Aea$) he is the im#ossi&$e7Aea$ o'tside father, so that there is a genea$ogi%a$ desert &etween man and God. (This was the #ro&$em with ,s$am for !re'd, sin%e his entire theory of re$igion is &ased on the #ara$$e$ of God with father.) 6ore im#ortant$y e(en, this ins%ri&es #o$iti%s into the (ery heart of ,s$am, sin%e the genea$ogi%a$ desert renders it im#ossi&$e to gro'nd a %omm'nity in the str'%t'res of #arenthood or other &$ood7$inks) the desert &etween God and !ather is the #$a%e where the #o$iti%a$ instit'tes itse$f. ? With ,s$am, it is no $onger #ossi&$e to gro'nd a %omm'nity in the mode of Totem and Ta oo, thro'gh the m'rder of the father and the ens'ing g'i$t as &ringing &rothers together : then%e ,s$ams 'ne"#e%ted a%t'a$ity. This #ro&$em is in the (ery heart of the (in)famo's umma, the 6's$im %omm'nity of &e$ie(ers1 it a%%o'nts for the o(er$a##ing of the re$igio's and the #o$iti%a$ (the %omm'nity sho'$d &e gro'nded

14

dire%t$y in Gods word), as we$$ as for the fa%t that ,s$am is at its &est when it gro'nds the formation of a %omm'nity o't of nowhere, in the genea$ogi%a$ desert, as the ega$itarian re(o$'tionary fraternity 7 no wonder ,s$am s'%%eeds when yo'ng men find themse$(es de#ri(ed of traditiona$ fami$y safety network. This, a$so, %om#e$s 's to E'a$ify and $imit the homo$ogy &etween !o'%a'$ts ,ranian engagement and /eideggers <a-i engagement) !o'%a'$t was right in engaging himse$f, he correctly dete%ted the eman%i#atory #otentia$ in the e(ents1 a$$ insin'ations of $i&era$ %riti%s that his engagement is yet another %ha#ter in the sad saga of Western radi%a$ inte$$e%t'a$s #ro9e%ting their fantasies into an e"oti% foreign '#hea(a$ whi%h a$$ows them to satisfy simultaneously their eman%i#atory desires and their se%ret maso%histi% $onging for harsh dis%i#$ine and o##ression, tota$$y misses the #oint. So where was his mistake2 .ne %an %$aim that he did the right thing for the wrong reason) the way he theori-ed and 9'stified his engagement is mis$eading. The frame within whi%h !o'%a'$t o#erates in his ana$ysis of the ,ranian sit'ation is the o##osition &etween the re(o$'tionary +(ent, the s'&$ime enth'siasm of the 'nited #eo#$e where a$$ interna$ differen%es are momentari$y s's#ended, and the #ragmati% domain of the #o$iti%s of interests, strategi% #ower %a$%'$ations, et%. : the o##osition whi%h, as we ha(e a$ready seen, dire%t$y e(okes Kants distin%tion &etween the no'mena$ (or, more #re%ise$y, the s'&$ime whi%h e(okes the no'mena$ dimension) and the #henomena$. .'r thesis is here a (ery #re%ise one) this genera$ frame is too a&stra%t to a%%o'nt for different moda$ities of %o$$e%ti(e enth'siasm : &etween, say, the <a-i enth'siasm of the #eo#$e 'nited in its re9e%tion of (whose effe%ts were 'ndo'&ted$y rea$), the enth'siasm of the #eo#$e 'nited against the stagnating Comm'nist regime, or the #ro#er$y re(o$'tionary enth'siasm. The differen%e is sim#$y that the first two are not +(ents, mere$y #se'do7+(ents, &e%a'se they were $a%king the moment of #ro#er$y 'to#ian o#ening. This differen%e is stri%t$y immanent to enth'siasti% 'nity) on$y in the $ast %ase, the %ommon denominator of this 'nity was the #art of no7#art, the downtrodden, those in%$'ded in so%iety with no #ro#er #$a%e within it and, as s'%h, f'n%tioning as the 'ni(ersa$ sing'$arity, dire%t$y em&odying the 'ni(ersa$ dimension. This is why, a$so, the o##osition &etween no'mena$ enth'siasm and #arti%'$ar strategi% interests does not %o(er the entire fie$d : if it were so, then we wo'$d remain st'%k fore(er in the o##osition &etween eman%i#atory o't&'rsts and the so&ering day after when $ife ret'rns to its #ragmati% norma$ r'n. !rom this %onstrained #ers#e%ti(e, e(ery attem#t to a(oid and3or #ost#one this so&ering ret'rn to the norma$ r'n of things amo'nts to terror, to the re(ersa$ of enth'siasm into monstrosity. What if, howe(er, this is what is tr'$y at stake in a tr'e eman%i#atory #ro%ess) in ;a%E'es Aan%ieres terms, how to 'nite the #o$iti%a$ and the #o$i%e, how to trans#ose the #o$iti%a$ eman%i#atory o't&'rst into the %on%rete reg'$ation of #o$i%ing. What %an &e more s'&$ime than the %reation of a new $i&erated territory, of a #ositi(e order of &eing whi%h es%a#es the gras# of the e"isting order2 This is why Badio' is right in denying to the enth'siasti% e(ents of the %o$$a#se of the Comm'nist regimes the stat's of an +(ent. When, in the $ast months of OOQ, the 6i$ose(i% regime in Ser&ia was fina$$y to##$ed, many 6ar"ists in the West raised the E'estion) 0What a&o't the %oa$ miners whose strike $ed to the disr'#tion of the e$e%tri%ity s'##$y and th's effe%ti(e$y &ro'ght 6i$ose(i% down2 Was that not a gen'ine workers5 mo(ement, whi%h was then mani#'$ated &y the #o$iti%ians, who were nationa$ist or %orr'#ted &y the C,*20 The same sym#tomati% #oint emerges a#ro#os of e(ery new so%ia$ '#hea(a$ ($ike the disintegration of the Aea$ So%ia$ism QO years ago)) in ea%h of these %ases, they identify some working %$ass mo(ement whi%h a$$eged$y dis#$ayed a

15

tr'e re(o$'tionary or, at $east, So%ia$ist #otentia$, &'t was first e"#$oited and then &etrayed &y the #ro%a#ita$ist and3or nationa$ist for%es. This way, one %an %ontin'e to dream that Ae(o$'tion is ro'nd the %orner) a$$ we need is the a'thenti% $eadershi# whi%h wo'$d &e a&$e to organi-e the workers5 re(o$'tionary #otentia$s. ,f one is to &e$ie(e them, So$idarnos% was origina$$y a worker5s demo%rati%7so%ia$ist mo(ement, $ater 0&etrayed0 &y &eing its $eadershi# whi%h was %orr'#ted &y the Ch'r%h and the C,*... There is, of %o'rse, a moment of tr'th in this a##roa%h) the '$timate irony of the disintegration of Comm'nism was that the great re(o$ts (GLA in QPF?, /'ngary in QPFG, So$idarity in 8o$and) were origina$$y workers5 '#risings whi%h on$y $ater #a(ed the way for the standard 0anti7Comm'nist0 mo(ements 7 &efore s'%%'m&ing to the 0e"terna$0 enemy, the regime got a message a&o't its fa$sity from those whom these 0workers5 and #easants5 states0 e(oked as their own so%ia$ &ase. /owe(er, this (ery fa%t a$so demonstrates how the workers5 re(o$t $a%ked any s'&stantia$ so%ia$ist %ommitment) in a$$ %ases, on%e the mo(ement e"#$oded, it was smooth$y hegemoni-ed &y the standard 0&o'rgeois0 ideo$ogy (#o$iti%a$ freedom, #ri(ate #ro#erty, nationa$ so(ereignty, et%.). The trou le with Heidegger /ow, then, do things stand with /eideggers engagement2 Was it, in %ontrast to !o'%a'$ts, rea$$y not on$y a %$ear mistake, &'t a mistake gro'nded in his #hi$oso#hy2 There is something #rofo'nd$y sym#tomati% in the %om#'$sion of many $i&era$7 demo%rati% %riti%s of /eidegger to demonstrate that /eideggers <a-i engagement was not a mere tem#orary &$'nder, &'t in %onsonan%e with the (ery f'ndamenta$s of his tho'ght) it is as if this %onsonan%e a$$ows 's to dismiss /eidegger as theoreti%a$$y irre$e(ant and th's to a(oid the effort to think with and thro'gh /eidegger, to %onfront the 'neasy E'estions he raised against s'%h &asi% tenets of modernity as h'manism, demo%ra%y, #rogress, et%. .n%e /eidegger disa##ears from the #i%t're, we %an safe$y go on with o'r %ommon %on%erns a&o't the ethi%a$ #ro&$ems o#ened '# &y &iogeneti%s, a&o't how to a%%ommodate the %a#ita$ist g$o&a$i-ation to a meaningf'$ %omm'na$ $ife : in short, we %an safe$y a(oid %onfronting what is rea$$y <ew in g$o&a$i-ation and &iogeneti% dis%o(eries, and %ontin'e to meas're these #henomena with o$d standards, with the wi$d ho#e of a synthesis that wo'$d 's to kee# the &est of &oth wor$ds. This, of %o'rse, in no way aims at reha&i$itating the defense of /eideggers <a-i7 e#isode, whi%h, not s'r#rising$y, fo$$ows yet again the &orrowed7kett$e form'$a) (Q) /eidegger was ne(er rea$$y a <a-i, he 9'st made some s'#erfi%ia$ %om#romises in order to sa(e whate(er %o'$d ha(e &een sa(ed from the 'ni(ersitys a'tonomy1 when he $earned that the game doesnt work, he %onseE'ent$y ste##ed down and withdrew from #'&$i% $ife. ( ) /eidegger was for a $imited #eriod a sin%ere$y engaged <a-i1 howe(er, not on$y did he withdrew on%e he &e%ome aware of his &$'nder, &'t the a%E'aintan%e with the <a-i #ower e"er%ise #re%ise$y ena&$ed him to gain insight into the nihi$ism of modern te%hno$ogy as the de#$oyment of the 'n%onditiona$ wi$$7to7#ower. (?) /eidegger was a <a-i, and there is nothing to re#roa%h him for this %hoi%e) in the %ir%'mstan%es of the ear$y QP?Os, it was a f'$$y $egitimate and 'nderstanda&$e %hoi%e. This is +rnst <o$tes #osition) it is worth to re%a$$ here his &ook on /eidegger, whi%h &ro'ght fresh wind into the eterna$ de&ate on /eidegger and the #o$iti%a$ : it did this on the (ery a%%o'nt of its 'na%%e#ta&$e o#tion) far from e"%'sing /eideggers infamo's #o$iti%a$ %hoi%e in QP??, it

16

9'stifies it : or, at $east, it de7demoni-es it, rendering it as a (ia&$e and meaningf'$ %hoi%e. *gainst the standard defenders of /eidegger whose mantra is that /eideggers <a-i engagement was a #ersona$ mistake of no f'ndamenta$ %onseE'en%es for his tho'ght, <o$te a%%e#ts the &asi% %$aim of /eideggers %riti%s that his <a-i %hoi%e is ins%ri&ed into his tho'ght : &'t with a twist) instead of #ro&$emati-ing his tho'ght, <o$te 9'stifies his #o$iti%a$ %hoi%e as a (ia&$e o#tion in the sit'ation of $ate QP Os and ear$y QP?Os with the e%onomi% %haos and Comm'nist threat) ,nsofar as /eidegger resisted the attem#t at the 3Comm'nist3 so$'tion, he, $ike %o'nt$ess others, was histori%a$$y right 343 ,n %ommitting himse$f to the 3<ationa$ So%ia$ist3 so$'tion #erha#s he &e%ame a >fas%ist.5 B't in no way did that make him histori%a$$y wrong from the o'tset. C *nd here is 6ark Wratha$$s mode$ form'$ation of the se%ond #osition) /eideggers work after the war did go some way towards o(er%oming the #o$iti%a$ nai(ete that $ed to his disastro's in(o$(ement with <ationa$ So%ia$ism. /e did this &y, first, getting m'%h %$earer than he had &een a&o't the dangers of the modern wor$d : the dangers whi%h $ed him to think we need a new wor$d dis%$os're. .n%e he was a&$e to arti%'$ate the danger of modernity in terms of te%hno$ogy, it &e%ame %$ear that <ationa$ So%ia$ism was 9'st another modern te%hno$ogi%a$ mo(ement (e(en if it em#$oyed te%hno$ogy for rea%tionary goa$s). F This #assage te$$s m'%h more than it may a##ear at first g$an%e : the key words in it are the inno%'o's 9'st another) is the 'nder$ying #remise not e(en the &est of #o$iti%a$ #ro9e%ts, the most radi%a$ attem#t to o##ose nihi$ism, remained 9'st another nihi$isti% mo(ement %a'ght in te%hno$ogy2 There is no horror of <a-ism here, <a-ism is 9'st another in the series, the differen%e is onto$ogi%a$$y insignifi%ant (whi%h is why, for /eidegger, the *$$ied (i%tory in the Wor$d War ,, rea$$y de%ided nothing). /ere /eideggers referen%e to /oe$der$ins famo's $ines enters) where the danger is rising, that whi%h %an sa(e 's 7 das /ettende : a$so grows4 : in order to o(er%ome the danger, one has to go to the e"treme in it : in short, in order to arri(e at the onto$ogi%a$ tr'th, /eidegger had to err onti%a$$y. So when Wratha$$ writes a#ro#os /eideggers <a-i engagement) ,t is dis%on%erting, to say the $east, that /eidegger, who #'r#orted to ha(e a 'niE'e insight into the mo(ement of wor$d history, #ro(ed to &e so terri&$y &$ind to the signifi%an%e of the e(ents that #$ayed o't &efore his eyes. G : a /eideggerian %o'$d ha(e easi$y t'rned this arg'ment aro'nd) the onti% &$indness for the tr'th of the <a-i regime was a #ositi(e %ondition of his onto$ogi%a$ insight. /owe(er, when defenders of /eidegger %$aim that the a%E'aintan%e with the <a-i #ower e"er%ise #re%ise$y ena&$ed him to gain insight into the nihi$ism of modern te%hno$ogy as the de#$oyment of the 'n%onditiona$ wi$$7to7#ower, does this $ine of defense not so'nd a $itt$e &it $ike the attit'de of the #ro(er&ia$ #rostit'te7t'rned7#rea%her who, after her %on(ersion, is fero%io's$y atta%king %arna$ sins, %$aiming that she knows from her own e"#erien%e how destr'%ti(e they are2 So when Ste(e !'$$er writes) ,roni%a$$y, /eideggers inte$$e%t'a$ stat're may e(en ha(e &een helped &y the time7 honored #ra%ti%e of >$earning from the o##onent in whi%h (i%tors ind'$ge after a war. ,n this res#e%t, /eideggers #o$iti%a$ >geni's may $ie in ha(ing st'%k with the

17

<a-is $ong eno'gh for the *meri%ans to dis%o(er him d'ring de7<a-ifi%ation witho't ending '# &eing 9'dged an 'nto'%ha&$e war %rimina$ whose works had to &e &anned. *s %ommitted anti7<a-is ens%on%ed in *$$ied %o'ntries, /eideggers e"istentia$ist ri(a$s ne(er 'nderwent s'%h intense s%r'tiny nor s'&seE'ent$y a%E'ired s'%h a mystiE'e for de#th and danger. I 7 there is tr'th in these $ines, &'t a more %om#$e" one that a mere $'%k in /eideggers striking the right &a$an%e in the de#th of his <a-i engagement) the diffi%'$t tr'th to admit is that /eidegger is great not in spite of" ut ecause of his <a-i engagement, that this engagement is a key %onstit'ent of his greatness. ,magine a /eidegger witho't this engagement, or a /eidegger who, after the Wor$d War ,,, were to do what many %o$$eag'es e"#e%ted of him) #'&$i%$y reno'n%e his <a-i engagement and a#o$ogi-e for it : wo'$d this not somehow im#ede on the radi%a$ity his insight2 Wo'$d it not %onstrain him to h'manitarian #o$iti%a$ %on%erns whi%h he so &itter$y des#ised2 6i%he$ de Beisteg'i makes a #ers#i%'o's o&ser(ation on the f'ndamenta$ am&ig'ity of /eideggers disi$$'sionment with <a-ism) it was his resignation and his disi$$'sionment with what, 'nti$ the end of his $ife, and with a to'%h of regret at not ha(ing seen it de(e$o# its #otentia$, he referred to as >the mo(ement. N ,s, howe(er, this not the reason why /eideggers $ater withdrawa$ from #o$iti%a$ engagement a$so %annot &e %on%ei(ed on$y in the terms of his insight into the nihi$ism of %ontem#orary #o$iti%s2 Le Beisteg'i %on%$'des his &ook with the statement that /eidegger wi$$ not &e %a'ght at 3a &e$ief in the redem#ti(e #ower of #o$iti%a$ engagement3 twi%e) ha(ing &'rned his fingers in #o$iti%s, and $ost his i$$'sions in the fai$'re of <a-ism to %arry o't a #ro9e%t of onto7destina$ signifi%an%e, his ho#es wi$$ t'rn to the hidden reso'r%es of tho'ght, art and #oetry, a$$ deemed to %arry a histori%a$ and destina$ #ower far greater than that of #o$iti%s. P B't is /eideggers ref'sa$ to &e %a'ght twi%e at the #o$iti%a$ engagement and th's to &'rn his fingers again not a negati(e mode of his %ontin'ing me$an%ho$i% atta%hment to the <a-i mo(ement2 (/is ref'sa$ to engage again in #o$iti%s was th's simi$ar to a disa##ointed $o(er who, after the fai$'re of his re$ationshi#, re9e%ts $o(e as s'%h and a(oids a$$ f'rther re$ationshi#s, there&y %onfirming in a negati(e way his $asting atta%hment to the fai$ed re$ationshi#.) ,s the #remise of this ref'sa$ not that, to the end of his $ife, for /eidegger the <a-i engagement remained the on$y #o$iti%a$ engagement whi%h at $east tried to address the right #ro&$em, so that the fai$'re of <a-ism is the fai$'re of the #o$iti%a$ as s'%h2 ,t ne(er entered /eideggers mind to #ro#ose : say, in a $i&era$ mode : that the fai$'re of the <a-i engagement is mere$y the fai$'re of a %ertain kind of engagement whi%h %onferred on the #o$iti%a$ the task of %arrying o't a #ro9e%t of onto7destina$ signifi%an%e, so that the $esson of it %o'$d &e sim#$y a more modest #o$iti%a$ engagement2 ,n other words, what if one %on%$'des from the fai$'re of /eideggers #o$iti%a$ engagement that what one sho'$d reno'n%e is the e"#e%tan%e that a #o$iti%a$ engagement wi$$ ha(e destina$ onto$ogi%a$ %onseE'en%es and engage in mere$y onti% #o$iti%s whi%h, far from o&f's%ating the need for a dee#er onto$ogi%a$ ref$e%tion, #re%ise$y o#ens '# a s#a%e for it2 What if e(en the (ery $ast /eidegger, when he e"#resses his do'&t that demo%ra%y is the #o$iti%a$ order whi%h &est fits the essen%e of modern te%hno$ogy, sti$$ did not $earn the '$timate $esson of his <a-i engagement, sin%e he %ontin'es to %$ing to the ho#e of finding an (onti%) #o$iti%a$ engagement whi%h wo'$d fit (&e at the $e(e$ of) the onto$ogi%a$ #ro9e%t of modern te%hno$ogy2 (.'r #remise,

18

of %o'rse, is that the $i&era$ engagement is not the on$y a$ternati(e) /eidegger was right in his do'&t a&o't $i&era$ demo%ra%y1 what he ref'sed to %onsider was a radi%a$ Beftist engagement.) Therein resides the im#ortan%e of the $ink &etween /eidegger and /annah *rendt) what is at stake in the diffi%'$t re$ationshi# &etween /eidegger and *rendt is /eideggers m'%h7de%ried a(ersion to $i&era$ism and ($i&era$) demo%ra%y, whi%h he %ontin'o's$y, to his end, re9e%ted as ina'thenti%, not the idiosyn%rasies of their #ersona$ $iaisons. *rendt was not on$y o##osed to /eidegger a$ong the do'&$e a"is of woman (ers's man and a wor$d$y ;ew (ers's a #ro(in%ia$ German, she was (whi%h is m'%h more im#ortant) the first li eral Heideggerian, the first who tried to re'nite /eideggers insights with the $i&era$7demo%rati% 'ni(erse. ,n a %$oser reading, of %o'rse, it is easy to dis%ern what ena&$ed *rendt to s'##ort $i&era$ism whi$e maintaining her &asi% fide$ity to /eideggers insights) her anti7&o'rgeois stan%e, her %riti%a$ dismissa$ of #o$iti%s as interest gro'#s #o$iti%s, as the e"#ression of the %om#etiti(e and a%E'isiti(e so%iety of the &o'rgeoisie. She shared the great %onser(ati(es dissatisfa%tion with the $a%k of heroism and the #ragmati%7'ti$itarian orientation of the &o'rgeois so%iety) Sim#$y to &rand as o't&'rsts of nihi$ism this (io$ent dissatisfa%tion with the #rewar age and s'&seE'ent attem#ts at restoring it (from <iet-s%he to Sore$ to 8areto, from Aim&a'd and T.+.Bawren%e to ;'enger, Bre%ht and 6a$ra'", from Bak'nin and <e%haye( to *$eksander B$ok) is to o(er$ook how 9'stified disg'st %an &e in a so%iety who$$y #ermeated with the ideo$ogi%a$ o't$ook and mora$ standards of the &o'rgeoisie.?O The o##osition *rendt mo&i$i-es here is the one &etween citoyen and ourgeois) the first $i(es in the #o$iti%a$ s#here of #'&$i% engagement for the %ommon good, of the #arti%i#ation in r'nning #'&$i% affairs, whi$e the se%ond is the egotisti% 'ti$itarian f'$$y immersed in the #rod'%tion #ro%ess and red'%ing a$$ other dimensions of $ife to their ro$e in ena&$ing the smooth r'nning of this #ro%ess. ,n *ristote$ian terms, this o##osition is the one &etween praxis and poiesis, &etween the high e"er%ise of (irt'es in #'&$i% $ife, and the $ow instr'menta$ity of $a&or : the o##osition whose e%hoes re(er&erate not on$y in /a&ermass distin%tion &etween %omm'ni%ati(e a%tion and instr'menta$ a%ti(ity, &'t e(en in Badio's notion of +(ent (and in his %on%omitant denia$ that an +(ent %an take #$a%e in the domain of #rod'%tion). Ae%a$$ how *rendt des%ri&es, in Badio'ian terms, the s's#ension of tem#ora$ity as the defining onto$ogi%a$ %hara%teristi% of onti% #o$iti%a$ a%tion) a%ting, as mens %a#a%ity to &egin something new, o't of nothing, not red'%i&$e to a %a$%'$ated strategi% rea%tion to a gi(en sit'ation, takes #$a%e in the non7tem#ora$ gap &etween #ast and f't're, in the hiat's &etween the end of the o$d order and the &eginning of the new whi%h in history is #re%ise$y the moment of re(o$'tion.?Q S'%h an o##osition, of %o'rse, raises a f'ndamenta$ E'estion form'$ated &y Ao&ert 8i##in) how %an *rendt se#arate o't what she admires in &o'rgeois %'$t're : its %onstit'tiona$ism, its assertion of f'ndamenta$ h'man rights, its eE'a$ity &efore the $aw, its insisten%e on a #ri(ate -one in h'man $ife, e"em#t from the #o$iti%a$, its re$igio's to$eran%e : and %ondemn what she disagrees with : its se%'$arism, its %yni%a$ ass'm#tion of the #er(asi(eness of se$f7interest, the #er(erting inf$'en%e of money on h'man (a$'e, its de#o$iti%i-ing tenden%ies, and the mena%e it #oses for tradition and a sense of #$a%e2?

19

,n other words, are these two sides not the two sides of the same #henomenon2 <o wonder then, that, when *rendt is #ressed to #ro(ide the o't$ine of the a'thenti% %are of the wor$d as a #o$iti%a$ #ra%ti%e that wo'$d not &e %ontaminated &y 'ti$itarian #ragmati% %a$%'$ation of interests, a$$ she %an e(oke are se$f7organi-ations in re(o$'tionary sit'ations, from the ear$y *meri%an tradition of town7ha$$ meetings of a$$ %iti-ens to re(o$'tionary %o'n%i$s in the German re(o$'tion. <ot that she is not #o$iti%a$$y 9'stified in e(oking these e"am#$es : the #ro&$em is that they are 'to#ian, that they %annot &e re%on%i$ed with the $i&era$7demo%rati% #o$iti%a$ order to whi%h she remains faithf'$. ,n other words, is *rendt with regard to $i&era$ demo%ra%y not the (i%tim of the same i$$'sion as the demo%rati% Comm'nists who, within the Aea$$y +"isting So%ia$ism, were fighting for its tr'$y demo%rati% (ersion2 *rendt is a$so right when (im#$i%it$y against /eidegger) she #oints o't that !as%ism, a$tho'gh a rea%tion to &o'rgeois &ana$ity, remains its inherent negation, i.e., within the hori-on of &o'rgeois so%iety) the tr'e #ro&$em of <a-ism is not that it went too far in its s'&9e%ti(ist7nihi$ist h'&ris of e"erting tota$ #ower, &'t that it did not go far eno'gh, i.e., that its (io$en%e was an im#otent a%ting o't whi%h, '$timate$y, remained in the ser(i%e of the (ery order it des#ised. (/owe(er, /eidegger wo'$d a$so ha(e &een right in re9e%ting *rendts *ristote$ian #o$iti%s as not radi%a$ eno'gh to &reak o't of the nihi$ist s#a%e of +'ro#ean modernity.) *rendt wo'$d th's ha(e &een 9'stified in %o'ntering 8i##ins a$$ too easy (ersion of a %ontem#orary #o$iti%a$ /ege$ianism1 his &asi% %$aim is that whi$e, of %o'rse, from todays e"#erien%e, /ege$s notion of a rationa$ state no $onger works, its $imitations are e(ident, these (ery $imitations sho'$d &e addressed in a /ege$ian way) ,n some fair$y o&(io's sense and in the histori%a$ terms he wo'$d ha(e to a%%e#t as re$e(ant to his own #hi$oso#hy, he was wrong. <one of these instit'tiona$ rea$i-ations now $ooks as sta&$e, as rationa$, or e(en as res#onsi(e to the %$aims of free s'&9e%ts as /ege$ has %$aimed, e(en tho'gh s'%h %riti%isms are often themse$(es made in the name of s'%h freedom. B't the nat're of that wrong is, , am arg'ing, a$so /ege$ian, a matter of &eing in%om#$ete, not who$$y wrong7 headed.?? ,n short, it is a matter of Aufhe ung, of the immanent se$f7%ritiE'e and se$f7o(er%oming, of these so$'tions, not of their o'tright re9e%tion4 /owe(er, what %annot &'t strike the eye is the forma$ist %hara%ter of this 8i##ins form'$a) he does not #ro(ide any %on%rete e"am#$es that wo'$d render it o#erati(e. The E'estion is, of %o'rse, how far do we ha(e to go in this Aufhe ung if we are to &ring /ege$s #ro9e%t of a rationa$ state of freedom '# todays %onditions : how dee# is irrationa$ity ins%ri&ed into todays &o'rgeois so%iety so that its %ritiE'e %an sti$$ &e form'$ated as a defen%e of &o'rgeois so%iety2 Lo we ha(e to stay within %a#ita$ism or risk a mo(e o'tside2 These, howe(er, are not /eideggers %on%erns) his f'ndamenta$ mo(e a#ro#os o'r %riti%a$ histori%a$ moment is to em#hasi-e the 'nder$ying sameness of the (ideo$ogi%a$, #o$iti%a$, e%onomi%4) %hoi%es we are %onfronting) from the #oint of (iew of their onto7histori%a$ origin, there is no real or fundamental differen%e &etween the Christian do%trine and Bo$she(ism, &etween the &io$ogism and im#eria$ism of <a-ism and the for%es of %a#ita$ (whi%h, today, ha(e #ermeated a$$ s#heres of $ife), and &etween (ita$ism and s#irit'a$ism. This, , &e$ie(e, is at on%e the strength, and the e"traordinary weakness and $imitation of /eideggers

20

#osition. !or on the one hand it a$$ows 's to esta&$ish %ontin'ities and %om#$i%ities where we tho'ght there were in%om#ati&i$ities, and to shift the weight of differen%e to a different terrain (that of the >meaning or the >tr'th of &eing). .n the other hand, tho'gh, &y re(ea$ing s'%h differen%es as #se'do7differen%es, he a$so ne'tra$i-es the de%isions and %hoi%es they often %a$$ for, there&y erasing the traditiona$ s#a%e of #o$iti%s and ethi%s.?C Hnfort'nate$y, de Beisteg'is so$'tion to this dead$o%k remains a$$ too %ommonsensi%a$ : a &a$an%ed a##roa%h whi%h takes into a%%o'nt the $egitimate demands of &oth $e(e$s) whate(er o'r %ommitments to the de%onstr'%tion of meta#hysi%s, and to the str'gg$e for new #ossi&i$ities of tho'ght and a%tion &eyond it, or #erha#s on its margins, we %ontin'e to $i(e within the meta#hysi%a$, te%hni%a$ framework, and so m'st remain %ommitted to taking serio's$y, and dis%riminating &etween, the many differen%es, %hoi%es and sit'ations we are fa%ed with at the histori%a$, #o$iti%a$, re$igio's and artisti% $e(e$. 343 The free re$ation to te%hno$ogy /eidegger ad(o%ates may, after a$$, a$so in(o$(e an a%ti(e #arti%i#ation in intra7meta#hysi%a$ #ro%esses, and not 9'st a meditation of its essen%e. !or within te%hno$ogy, there are differen%es that matter, and to whi%h we %annot : and m'st not : remain &$ind. With one %riti%a$ eye, and the other de%onstr'%ti(e, we may &e &etter eE'i##ed to na(igate the often trea%hero's waters of o'r time.?F B't what if there is a f'ndamenta$ dis%ord &etween the onto$ogi%a$ and the onti%, so that, as /eidegger #'t it, those who rea%h onto$ogi%a$ tr'th ha(e to err in the onti%2 What if, if we are to see with the onto$ogi%a$ eye, o'r onti% eye has to &e &$inded2 0ntological difference When /eidegger s#eaks of the 'ntr'th7%on%ea$edness7withdrawa$ as inherent to the tr'th7e(ent itse$f, he has in mind two different $e(e$s) 7 .n the one hand, the way a man, when engaged in inner7wor$d$y affairs, forgets the hori-on of meaning within whi%h he dwe$$s, and e(en forgets this forgetting itse$f (e"em#$ary is here the 0regression0 of Greek tho'ght that o%%'rs with the rise of So#hists) what was the %onfrontation with the (ery fo'ndation of o'r Being t'rns into a trif$ing #$ay with different $ines of arg'mentation with no inherent re$ation to Tr'th). 7 .n the other hand, the way this hori-on of meaning itse$f, insofar as it is an e#o%ha$ +(ent, arises against the &a%kgro'nd of 7 and there&y %on%ea$s 7 the im#ondera&$e 6ystery of its emergen%e, in the same way a %$earing in the midst of a forest is s'rro'nded &y the dark thi%kness of the woods. The same am&ig'ity re#eats itse$f a#ro#os +arth as that whi%h resists, remains fore(er o&s%'re and 'nfathoma&$e) There a$ways is something resisting and s'##orting o'r #ra%ti%es, and that something is (ery rea$.?G So, on the one hand, +arth designates what resists to the meaningf'$ tota$ity of a histori%a$ wor$d) *s a wor$d stri(es to grow &a%k into the earth, it en%o'nters resistan%e. ,n the #ro%ess, the earth a##ears in a determinate way in terms of the resistan%e that the wor$d en%o'nters. ,n &'i$ding the %athedra$, we dis%o(er #arti%'$ar ways in whi%h

21

o'r #ra%ti%es are $imited and %onstrained. 343 .'r wor$ds, and %onseE'ent$y o'r meaningf'$ re$ations to things, are a$ways &ased in something that %ant &e e"#$ained in terms of the #re(ai$ing inte$$igi&$e str'%t're of the wor$d.?I .n the other hand, howe(er, what is most im#enetra&$e is the asic structure of the world itself. !or e"am#$e, when we arg'e that the moderni-ation of ;a#an was desira&$e &e%a'se it &ro'ght a higher gross domesti% #rod'%t and #er %a#ita in%ome, one sho'$d raise the more f'ndamenta$ E'estion) B't why one sho'$d ha(e 9'st those #referen%es is #re%ise$y what is at iss'e : if one wo'$d #refer the #a%e and sty$e of #remodern ;a#anese $ife to an in%rease of #er %a#ita in%ome, then the arg'ment that ;a#an sho'$d moderni-e in order to in%rease a(erage in%ome wi$$ not &e #ers'asi(e. 343 So it seems that the strength of the dri(e to esta&$ish a new wor$d and destroy the o$d de#ends on something withdrawing from (iew : that is &e%oming so se$f7e(ident that it is no $onger o#en to E'estion) name$y, the desira&i$ity of the new wor$d itse$f. This desira&i$ity is an earth$y thing) it withdraws and she$ters the wor$d it s'##orts. 343 .'r wor$d is s'##orted &y o'r most &asi% #referen%es : a taste for effi%ien%y and f$e"i&i$ity : ha(ing $arge$y withdrawn from (iew.?N +arth is th's either the im#enetra&$e a&yss of the onti% whi%h withdraws onto$ogi%a$ dis%$os're, or the hori-on of this dis%$os're itse$f, in(isi&$e on a%%o'nt of its e"%essi(e se$f7e(iden%e itse$f : we do not see it as s'%h &e%a'se it is the (ery medi'm thro'gh whi%h we see e(erything. .ne sho'$d make the #ro#er$y /ege$ian mo(e of identifying the two $e(e$s) the Beyond and the o&sta%$e7s%reen that distorts o'r a%%ess to Beyond. So this is not sim#$y /eideggers mistake or %onf'sion (to &e reso$(ed or %orre%ted &y introd'%ing a f'rther notiona$ distin%tion) one term for the +arth as the darkness of what resists dis%$os're, another for the in(isi&i$ity of the (ery hori-on of dis%$os're). The os%i$$ation &etween the two $e(e$s is what defines +arth. What this a$so means is that onto$ogi%a$ differen%e is not 0ma"ima$,0 &etween a$$ &eings, the highest gen's, and something e$se3more3&eyond, &'t, rather, 0minima$,0 the &are minim'm of a differen%e not &etween &eings &'t &etween the minim'm of an entity and the (oid, nothing. ,nsofar as it is gro'nded in the finit'de of h'mans, onto$ogi%a$ differen%e is that whi%h makes a tota$i-ation of *$$ of &eings im#ossi&$e 7 onto$ogi%a$ differen%e means that the fie$d of rea$ity is finite. .nto$ogi%a$ differen%e is in this #re%ise sense rea$3im#ossi&$e) to 'se +rnesto Ba%$a's determination of antagonism, in it, external difference o!erlaps with internal difference. The differen%e &etween &eings and their Being is sim'$taneo's$y a differen%e within &eings themse$(es1 that is to say, the differen%e &etween &eings3entities and their .#ening, their hori-on of 6eaning, a$ways a$so %'ts into the fie$d of &eings themse$(es, making it in%om#$ete3finite. Therein resides the #arado") the difference etween eings in their totality and their Being precisely 1misses the difference2 and reduces Being to another 1higher2 *ntity3 The #ara$$e$ &etween Kants antinomies and /eideggers onto$ogi%a$ differen%e resides in the fa%t that, in &oth %ases, the ga# (#henomena$3no'mena$1 onti%3onto$ogi%a$) is to &e referred to the non7*$$ of the #henomena$7onti% domain itse$f. /owe(er, the $imitation of Kant was that he was not a&$e to f'$$y ass'me this #arado" of finit'de as %onstit'ti(e of the onto$ogi%a$ hori-on) '$timate$y, he red'%ed trans%endenta$ hori-on to a way rea$ity a##ears to a finite &eing (man), with a$$ of it $o%ated into a wider en%om#assing rea$m of no'mena$ rea$ity.

22

/ere the $ink offers itse$f with the Ba%anian Aea$ whi%h, at its most radi%a$ $e(e$, is the disa(owed @ on a%%o'nt of whi%h o'r (ision of rea$ity is anamor#hi%a$$y distorted) it is sim'$taneo's$y the Thing to whi%h dire%t a%%ess is not #ossi&$e and the o&sta%$e whi%h #re(ents this dire%t a%%ess, the Thing whi%h e$'des o'r gras# and the distorting s%reen whi%h makes 's miss the Thing. 6ore #re%ise$y, the Aea$ is '$timate$y the (ery shift of #ers#e%ti(e from the first to the se%ond stand#oint. Ae%a$$ the o$d we$$7known *dornos ana$ysis of the antagonisti% %hara%ter of the notion of so%iety) in a first a##roa%h, the s#$it &etween the two notions of so%iety (*ng$o7Sa"on indi(id'a$isti%7nomina$isti% and L'rkheimian organi%ist notion of so%iety as a tota$ity whi%h #ree"ists indi(id'a$s) seems irred'%i&$e, we seem to &e dea$ing with a tr'e Kantian antinomy whi%h %annot &e reso$(ed (ia a higher dia$e%ti%a$ synthesis, and whi%h e$e(ates so%iety into an ina%%essi&$e Thing7in7itse$f1 howe(er, in a se%ond a##roa%h, one sho'$d mere$y take note of how this radi%a$ antinomy whi%h seems to #re%$'de o'r a%%ess to the Thing already is the thing itself : the f'ndamenta$ feat're of todays so%iety ,S the irre%on%i$ia&$e antagonism &etween Tota$ity and the indi(id'a$. What this means is that, '$timate$y, the stat's of the Aea$ is #'re$y #ara$$a%ti% and, as s'%h, non7s'&stantia$) is has no s'&stantia$ density in itse$f, it is 9'st a ga# &etween two #oints of #ers#e%ti(e, #er%e#ti&$e on$y in the shift from the one to the other. The #ara$$a" Aea$ is th's o##osed to the standard (Ba%anian) notion of the Aea$ as that whi%h a$ways ret'rns at its #$a%e, i.e., as that whi%h remains the same in a$$ #ossi&$e (sym&o$i%) 'ni(erses) the #ara$$a" Aea$ is rather that whi%h a%%o'nts for the (ery multiplicity of a##earan%es of the same 'nder$ying Aea$ : it is not the hard %ore whi%h #ersists as the Same, &'t the hard &one of %ontention whi%h #'$(eri-es the sameness into the m'$tit'de of a##earan%es. ,n a first mo(e, the Aea$ is the im#ossi&$e hard %ore whi%h we %annot %onfront dire%t$y, &'t on$y thro'gh the $enses of a m'$tit'de of sym&o$i% fi%tions, (irt'a$ formations. ,n a se%ond mo(e, this (ery hard %ore is #'re$y (irt'a$, a%t'a$$y non7e"isting, an @ whi%h %an &e re%onstr'%ted on$y retroa%ti(e$y, from the m'$tit'de of sym&o$i% formations whi%h are a$$ that there a%t'a$$y is. ,t seems that /eidegger was not ready to draw a$$ the %onseE'en%es from this ne%essary do'&$e meaning of 'n%on%ea$edness, whi%h, to #'t it &$'nt$y, wo'$d ha(e %om#e$$ed him to a%%e#t that onto$ogi%a$ differen%e is '$timate$y nothing &'t a rift in the onti% order (in%identa$$y, in the e"a%t #ara$$e$ to Badio's key admission that the +(ent is '$timate$y nothing &'t a torsion in the order of Being). This $imitation of /eidegger has a series of #hi$oso#hi%a$ and ethi%o7#o$iti%a$ %onseE'en%es. 8hi$oso#hi%a$$y, it $eads to /eideggers notion of histori%a$ destiny whi%h de$i(ers different hori-ons of the dis%$os're of &eing, destiny whi%h %annot and sho'$d not &e in any way inf$'en%ed &y or de#endent on onti% o%%'rren%es. +thi%o7#o$iti%a$$y, it a%%o'nts for /eideggers (not sim#$y ethi%a$, &'t #ro#er$y onto$ogi%a$) indifferen%e towards ho$o%a'st, its $e(e$ing to 9'st another %ase of the te%hno$ogi%a$ dis#osa$ of $ife (in the infamo's #assage from the %onferen%e on te%hniE'e)) to a%know$edge ho$o%a'sts e"traordinary3e"%e#tiona$ stat's wo'$d eE'a$ re%ogni-ing in it a tra'ma that shatters the (ery onto$ogi%a$ %oordinates of &eing. Loes this indifferen%e make him a <a-i2 Heidegger4s smoking gun5 There are two /eideggers seminars whi%h %$ear$y dist'r& the offi%ia$ #i%t're of a /eidegger who on$y e"terna$$y a%%ommodated himse$f to the <a-i regime in order to sa(e whate(er %o'$d &e sa(ed of the 'ni(ersitys a'tonomy) #e er 6esen und Begriff !on %atur" +eschichte und .taat (0n the *ssence and %otion of %ature" History" and

23

.tate, Winter QP??7?C, #roto%o$ %onser(ed in Le'ts%hes Biterat'rar%hi(, 6ar&a%h am <e%kar)1 Hegel" ue er den .taat (Hegel" on the .tate, Winter QP?C7?F, #roto%o$ a$so %onser(ed in LB*). Signifi%ant$y, the first of the two is not in%$'ded in the offi%ia$ +esamtausga e &y K$ostermann Rer$ag : a fa%t that renders #ro&$emati% its designation as %om#$ete edition.?P These two seminars are the %$osest one %an get to the #ro(er&ia$ smoking g'n, sin%e they ena%t #re%ise$y what, a%%ording to the offi%ia$ /eideggerian do"a, did not, %o'$d not, and sho'$d not ha(e taken #$a%e) the f'$$7#$edged s'##ort of <a-ism form'$ated and gro'nded in /eideggers innermost #hi$oso#hi%a$ #ro9e%t. (,t is nonethe$ess wrong for a #hi$oso#her to #'t too m'%h into finding smoking g'ns) they on$y %onfirm what is a$ready there in the forma$ str'%t're of a tho'ght.) /owe(er, one sho'$dnt $ose ner(es too fast here and $et onese$f go to the standard $i&era$ %ondemnation) /eideggers fai$'re is not as easy to $o%ate as it may a##ear. The atmos#here of /eideggers #o$iti%a$ referen%es in his te"ts and %o'rses from the QP?Os (the e"am#$es he 'ses, et%.) is, as e"#e%ted, omino's : s'ffi%e it to re%a$$ the &eginning of the #aragra#h whi%h E'estions the &eing of a state) * state : it is. ,n what %onsists its &eing2 ,n that the state #o$i%e arrests a s's#e%t 3432CO The (ery e"am#$e he 'ses to i$$'strate what /ege$ means &y his %$aim a&o't the s#e%'$ati(e identity of the rationa$ and the a%t'a$ is, again, omino's) The treaty of Rersai$$es is a%t'a$, &'t not rationa$.(?FN) /eideggers starting #oint is a defense of /ege$ against the famo's #ro%$amation &y Car$ S%hmitt (the one who #ro%$aimed that /ege$ died in QP??, when /it$er took o(er)) ,t was said that /ege$ died in QP??1 E'ite on the %ontrary) he on$y &egan to $i(e.(???) Why, then, did /ege$ on$y &egin to $i(e in QP??2 /eidegger endorses /ege$s thesis on state as the highest form of so%ia$ e"isten%e) The highest a%t'a$i-ation of h'man &eing o%%'rs in state.( CI) /e e(en dire%t$y onto$ogi-es state, defining the re$ationshi# &etween the #eo#$e and its state in the terms of onto$ogi%a$ differen%e) The #eo#$e, the e"isting, has a f'$$y determined re$ationshi# towards its &eing, towards state.( QI) /owe(er, in what fo$$ows, it soon &e%omes %$ear that /eidegger on$y needs /ege$ in order to assert the emerging <a-i tota$ state against the $i&era$ notion of state as a means to reg'$ate the intera%tion of %i(i$ so%iety1 he a##ro(ing$y refers to /ege$s de#$oyment of the $imitation of the e"terna$ state, the state of ne%essity, the state of Hnderstanding, the system of %i(i$ so%iety(?N )) 343 we %annot gras# what /ege$ 'nderstands as freedom, if we take it as an essentia$ determination of a sing'$ar ,. 343 !reedom is on$y a%t'a$ where there is a %omm'nity of ,s, of s'&9e%ts.(?GI) B't /ege$ 'nderstands 'nder freedom also this) he insists on the modern #rin%i#$e of the indi(id'a$s infinite right. !or /ege$, %i(i$ so%iety is the great modern a%hie(ement, the %ondition of a%t'a$ freedom, the materia$ &ase of m't'a$ re%ognition, and his #ro&$em is #re%ise$y how to unite the 'nity of the State and the dynami% mediation of the %i(i$ so%iety witho't %'rtai$ing the rights of the %i(i$ so%iety. The yo'ng /ege$, es#e%ia$$y in his .ystem der .ittlichkeit, was sti$$ fas%inated &y the Greek polis as the organi% 'nity of indi(id'a$ and so%iety) here, so%ia$ s'&stan%e does not yet stand o##osed to indi(id'a$s as a %o$d a&stra%t o&9e%ti(e $ega$ity im#osed from o'tside, &'t as the $i(ing 'nity of %'stoms, of a %o$$e%ti(e ethi%a$ $ife in whi%h indi(id'a$s are at home, re%ogni-ing it as their own s'&stan%e. !rom this #ers#e%ti(e, %o$d 'ni(ersa$ $ega$ity is a regression from the organi% 'nity of %'stoms : the regression from Gree%e to Aoman em#ire. *$tho'gh /ege$ soon a%%e#ted that the s'&9e%ti(e freedom of modernity has to &e a%%e#ted, that the organi% 'nity of polis is fore(er $ost, he nonethe$ess insisted on a need to some kind of ret'rn to renewed organi% 'nity, to a new polis that wo'$d %o'nter offer indi(id'a$s a

24

dee#er sense of so%ia$ so$idarity and organi% 'nity a&o(e the me%hanisti% intera%tion and indi(id'a$ist %om#etition of %i(i$ so%iety. /ege$s %r'%ia$ ste# towards mat'rity o%%'rs when he rea$$y a&andons the #aradigm of polisCQ &y way of re%on%e#t'a$i-ing the ro$e of %i(i$ so%iety. !irst, %i(i$ so%iety is for /ege$ the State of Hnderstanding, state red'%ed to the #o$i%e7a##arat's reg'$ating the %haoti% intera%tion of indi(id'a$s ea%h of whom is #'rs'ing his egotisti% interests : s'%h indi(id'a$isti%7atomisti% notion of freedom and the notion of $ega$ order as im#osed on indi(id'a$s as the e"terna$ $imitation of their freedom are stri%t$y %orre$ati(e. The need th's arises to #ass from this state of Hnderstanding to the tr'e state of Aeason, in whi%h the indi(id'a$s s'&9e%ti(e dis#ositions are harmoni-ed with the so%ia$ Who$e, in whi%h indi(id'a$s re%ogni-e so%ia$ s'&stan%e as their own. The %r'%ia$ ste# o%%'rs when /ege$ f'$$y de(e$o#s the mediating ro$e of the %i(i$ so%iety) the system of m'$ti$atera$ de#enden%e whose '$timate modern form is the market e%onomy, this system in whi%h #arti%'$ar and 'ni(ersa$ are se#arated and o##osed, in whi%h e(ery indi(id'a$ #'rs'es on$y his #ri(ate goa$s, in whi%h organi% so%ia$ 'nity de%om#oses into e"terna$ me%hani% intera%tion, is in itse$f a$ready the re%on%i$iation of the #arti%'$ar and the 'ni(ersa$ in the g'ise of the famo's in(isi&$e hand of the market, on a%%o'nt of whi%h, &y #'rs'ing #ri(ate interests at the e"#ense of others, e(ery indi(id'a$ %ontri&'tes to the we$fare of a$$. ,t is th's not sim#$y that one has to o(er%ome the me%hani%3e"terna$ intera%tion of %i(i$ so%iety in a higher organi% 'nity) %i(i$ so%iety and its disintegration #$ays a %r'%ia$ mediating ro$e, so that the tr'e re%on%i$iation (the one whi%h does not a&o$ish modern s'&9e%ti(e freedom) sho'$d re%ogni-e how this disintegration is in itse$f a$ready its o##osite, a for%e of integration. Ae%on%i$iation is th's radi%a$$y immanent) it im#$ies a shift of #ers#e%ti(e on what first a##ear as disintegration. ,n other words, insofar as %i(i$ so%iety is the s#here of a$ienation, of the se#aration &etween s'&9e%ti(ity #ersisting in its a&stra%t indi(id'a$ity and the o&9e%ti(e so%ia$ order o##osing it as an e"terna$ ne%essity that %'rtai$s its freedom, the reso'r%es of re%on%i$iation sho'$d &e fo'nd in this !ery sphere (in what" in this sphere" appears 1at first sight" as the least spiritual" as the most alienating7 the system of needsC ), not in the #assage to another higher s#here. The str'%t're of this re%on%i$iation in mat're /ege$ is, again, that of the 9oke on Aa&ino(i%h) There are two reasons modern so%iety is re%on%i$ed with itse$f. The first is the intera%tion of %i(i$ so%iety4 B't the %i(i$ so%iety intera%tion is a %onstant strife, the (ery me%hanism of disintegration, of r'th$ess %om#etitionD We$$, this is the se%ond reason, sin%e this (ery strife and %om#etition makes indi(id'a$s thoro'gh$y interde#endent and th's generates the '$timate so%ia$ $ink4 The who$e #ers#e%ti(e th's %hanges) it is no $onger that the organi% .ittlichkeit of polis disintegrates 'nder the %orrosi(e inf$'en%e of modern a&stra%t indi(id'a$ity in its m'$ti#$e modes (market e%onomy, 8rotestantism, et%.), and that this 'nity sho'$d somehow &e restored at a higher $e(e$) the #oint of /ege$s ana$yses of antiE'ity, &est e"em#$ified &y his re#eated readings of Antigone, is that the Greek polis itse$f was a$ready marked, %'t thro'gh, &y fata$ immanent antagonisms (#'&$i%7#ri(ate, mas%'$ine7 feminine, h'man7di(ine, free7s$a(es, et%.) whi%h &e$ie its organi% 'nity. The a&stra%t 'ni(ersa$ indi(id'a$ism (Christianity), far from %a'sing the disintegration of the Greek organi% 'nity, was, on the %ontrary, the ne%essary first ste# towards tr'e re%on%i$iation. With regard to market, far from &eing sim#$y a %orrosi(e for%e, it is the market intera%tion whi%h #ro(ides the mediating #ro%ess whi%h forms the &ase of tr'e re%on%i$iation &etween the 'ni(ersa$ and the sing'$ar) market %om#etition &rings #eo#$e rea$$y together, whi$e organi% order di(ides them.

25

The &est indi%ation of this shift in the mat're /ege$ %on%erns the o##osition of %'stoms and $aw) for the ear$y /ege$, the transformation of %'stoms into instit'tiona$i-ed $aw is a regressi(e mo(e from organi% 'nity to a$ienation (the norm is not $onger e"#erien%ed as #art of my s'&stantia$ ethi%a$ nat're, &'t as an e"terna$ for%e that %onstrains my freedom), whi$e for the mat're /ege$, this transformation is a %r'%ia$ ste# forward, o#ening '# and s'staining the s#a%e of modern s'&9e%ti(e freedom.C? ,t is in tota$ o##osition to these insights of /ege$s that /eidegger de#$oys his notion of a tota$ state) We are we$$ ta$king a&o't a tota$ state. This state is not a #arti%'$ar domain (among others), it is not an a##arat's whi%h is here to #rote%t so%iety (from the state itse$f), a domain with whi%h on$y some #eo#$e ha(e to dea$.(?IG) 343 the #eo#$e th's wi$$s and $o(es the state as its own way and manner to &e as #eo#$e. The #eo#$e is dominated &y the stri(ing, &y eros, for the state.( Q) This +ros, of %o'rse, im#$ies #ersonifi%ation) $o(e is a$ways $o(e for the .ne, Beader) The !'ehrer7State : the one we ha(e : means the a%%om#$ishment of the histori%a$ de(e$o#ment) the a%t'a$i-ation of the #eo#$e in !'ehrer.( CI) ,t is on$y the $eaders wi$$ whi%h makes others into its fo$$owers, and %omm'nity arises o't of this fo$$owshi#. The fo$$owers sa%rifi%e and ser(i%e originate in this $i(ing %onne%tion, not in their o&edien%e to the %onstraint of instit'tions.( CO) Beader has something to do with the #eo#$es wi$$1 this wi$$ is not the s'm of sing'$ar wi$$s, &'t a Who$e of a #rimordia$ #ro#er$iness. The E'estion of the %ons%io'sness7of7 the7wi$$ of a %omm'nity is a #ro&$em in a$$ demo%ra%ies, whi%h %an on$y &e reso$(ed in a fr'itf'$ way when one re%ogni-es $eaders wi$$ and #eo#$es wi$$ in their essentia$ity. .'r task today is to arrange the fo'nding re$ationshi# of o'r %omm'na$ &eing in the dire%tion of this a%t'a$ity of #eo#$e and $eader, where, as its a%t'a$ity, the two %annot &e se#arated. .n$y when this &asi% s%heme is asserted in its essentia$ as#e%t thro'gh its a##$i%ation, is a tr'e $eadershi# #ossi&$e.( ?N) This, of %o'rse, is again tota$$y o##osed to /ege$, for whom the head of a rationa$ State sho'$d not &e a Beader, &'t a King : why2 Bet 's take a $ook at /ege$s (in)famo's ded'%tion of the rationa$ ne%essity of hereditary monar%hy) the &'rea'%rati% %hain of know$edge has to &e s'##$emented &y the Kings de%ision as the %om#$ete$y %on%rete o&9e%ti(ity of the wi$$ whi%h rea&sor&s a$$ #arti%'$arity into its sing$e se$f, %'ts short the weighing of #ros and %ons &etween whi%h it $ets itse$f os%i$$ate #er#et'a$$y now this way and now that, and &y saying 5, wi$$5 makes its de%ision and so ina'g'rates a$$ a%ti(ity and a%t'a$ity.CC This is why the %on%e#tion of the monar%h is of a$$ %on%e#tions the hardest for ratio%ination, i.e. for the method of ref$e%tion em#$oyed &y the Hnderstanding.CF ,n the ne"t #aragra#h, /ege$ f'rther e$a&orates this s#e%'$ati(e ne%essity of the monar%h) This '$timate se$f in whi%h the wi$$ of the state is %on%entrated is, when th's taken in a&stra%tion, a sing$e se$f and therefore is immediate indi(id'a$ity. /en%e its 5nat'ra$5 %hara%ter is im#$ied in its (ery %on%e#tion. The monar%h, therefore, is

26

essentia$$y %hara%teri-ed as this indi(id'a$, in a&stra%tion from a$$ his other %hara%teristi%s, and this indi(id'a$ is raised to the dignity of monar%hy in an immediate, nat'ra$, fashion, i.e. thro'gh his &irth in the %o'rse of nat're.CG The s#e%'$ati(e moment that Hnderstanding %annot gras# is the transition of the %on%e#t of #'re se$f7determination into the immedia%y of &eing and so into the rea$m of nat're.CI ,n other words, whi$e Hnderstanding %an we$$ gras# the 'ni(ersa$ mediation of a $i(ing tota$ity, what it %annot gras# is that this totality" in order to actuali&e itself" has to ac,uire actual existence in the guise of an immediate 1natural2 singularity.CN The term nat'ra$ sho'$d &e gi(en its f'$$ weight here) in the same way that, at the end of 8ogic, the ,deas %om#$eted se$f7mediation re$eases from itse$f <at're, %o$$a#ses into the e"terna$ immedia%y of <at're, the States rationa$ se$f7mediation has to a%E'ire a%t'a$ e"isten%e in a wi$$ whi%h is determined as dire%t$y nat'ra$, 'nmediated, stricto sensu irrationa$. Whi$e o&ser(ing <a#o$eon on a horse in the streets of ;ena after the &att$e of QNOI, /ege$ remarked that it was as if he saw there the Wor$d S#irit riding a horse. The Christo$ogi%a$ im#$i%ations of this remark are o&(io's) what ha##ened in the %ase of Christ is that God himse$f, the %reator of o'r entire 'ni(erse, was wa$king o't there as a %ommon indi(id'a$. This mystery of in%arnation is dis%erni&$e at different $e(e$s, '# to the #arents s#e%'$ati(e 9'dgment a#ro#os a %hi$d .'t there o'r $o(e is wa$kingD, whi%h stands for the /ege$ian re(ersa$ of determinate ref$e"ion into ref$e"i(e determination : the same as with a king, when his s'&9e%t sees him wa$king aro'nd) .'t there o'r state is wa$king. 6ar"s e(o%ation of ref$e"i(e determination (in his famo's footnote in Cha#ter Q of (apital) a$so fa$$s short here) indi(id'a$s think they treat a #erson as a king &e%a'se he is a king in himse$f, whi$e, effe%ti(e$y, he is a king on$y &e%a'se they treat him as one. /owe(er, the %r'%ia$ #oint is that this reifi%ation of a so%ia$ re$ation in a #erson %annot &e dismissed as a sim#$e fetishist mis#er%e#tion1 what s'%h a dismissa$ itse$f misses is something that, #erha#s, %o'$d &e designated as the /ege$ian #erformati(e) of %o'rse a king is in himse$f a misera&$e indi(id'a$, of %o'rse he is a king on$y insofar as his s'&9e%ts treat him $ike one1 howe(er, the #oint is that the fetishist i$$'sion whi%h s'stains o'r (eneration of a king has in itse$f a #erformati(e dimension : the !ery unity of our state" that which the king 1em odies"2 actuali&es itself only in the person of a king. Whi%h is why it is not eno'gh to insist on the need to a(oid the fetishist tra# and to disting'ish &etween the %ontingent #erson of a king and what he stands for) what the king stands for on$y %omes to &e in his #erson, the same as with a %o'#$es $o(e whi%h (at $east within a %ertain traditiona$ #ers#e%ti(e) on$y &e%omes a%t'a$ in their offs#ring. So far, /ege$ seems to say the same thing as /eidegger1 there is, howe(er, a key differen%e, made %$ear in the *ddition to the 8aragra#h NO) Addition) ,t is often a$$eged against monar%hy that it makes the we$fare of the state de#endent on %han%e, for, it is 'rged, the monar%h may &e i$$7ed'%ated, he may #erha#s &e 'nworthy of the highest #osition in the state, and it is sense$ess that s'%h a state of affairs sho'$d e"ist &e%a'se it is s'##osed to &e rationa$. B't a$$ this rests on a #res'##osition whi%h is n'gatory, name$y that e(erything de#ends on the monar%h5s #arti%'$ar %hara%ter. ,n a %om#$ete$y organi-ed state, it is on$y a E'estion of the %'$minating #oint of forma$ de%ision (and a nat'ra$ &'$wark against #assion. ,t is wrong therefore to demand o&9e%ti(e E'a$ities in a monar%h)1 he has on$y to say 5yes5 and dot the 5i5, &e%a'se the throne sho'$d &e s'%h that the

27

signifi%ant thing in its ho$der is not his #arti%'$ar make7'#. 343 ,n a we$$7organi-ed monar%hy, the o&9e%ti(e as#e%t &e$ongs to $aw a$one, and the monar%h5s #art is mere$y to set to the $aw the s'&9e%ti(e 5, wi$$5.CP What is missing in /eidegger is this red'%tion of the f'n%tion of the 6onar%h to the #'re$y forma$ f'n%tion of dotting the is, i.e., the se#aration &etween what, today, we wo'$d ha(e %a$$ed the %onstati(e and the #erformati(e as#e%t (or, in Ba%ans terms, the %hain of know$edge and the 6aster7Signifier)) the o&9e%ti(e as#e%t of go(erning a State, the %ontent of $aws and meas'res (whi%h is the &'siness of the e"#ert &'rea'%ra%y), and its transformation into a s'&9e%ti(e de%ision of the State that is to &e ena%ted. /eideggers %on%e#t of Beader %onfo'nds #re%ise$y the two dimensions /ege$ stri(es to kee# a#art. The f'rther #arado" of /ege$s notion of monar%hy is that the King is the %onstit'ti(e e"%e#tion whi%h, as s'%h, g'arantees the 'ni(ersa$ $ega$ eE'a$ity of a$$ other s'&9e%ts1 no wonder that, in %ontrast to /ege$, /eidegger e"#$i%it$y re9e%ts eE'a$ity in fa(or of a hierar%hy of grades enfor%ed &y the Beader) To domination &e$ongs #ower, whi%h %reates a hierar%hy of grades thro'gh the im#osition of the wi$$ of the one who r'$es, insofar as he is a%t'a$$y #owerf'$, i.e., insofar as he dis#oses those 'nder his r'$e.( ?P) /eidegger : in %ontrast to those who a%%'se him of $ea(ing o't of %onsideration the %r'e$ as#e%ts of the *n%ient Greek $ife (s$a(ery, et%.) : o#en$y draws attention to how rank and dominan%e are dire%t$y gro'nded in a dis%$os're of &eing, there&y #ro(iding a dire%t onto$ogi%a$ gro'nding to so%ia$ re$ations of domination) ,f #eo#$e today from time to time are going to &'sy themse$(es rather too eager$y with the #o$is of the Greeks, they sho'$d not s'##ress this side of it1 otherwise the %on%e#t of the #o$is easi$y &e%omes inno%'o's and sentimenta$. What is higher in rank is what is stronger. Th's Being, $ogos, as the gathered harmony, is not easi$y a(ai$a&$e for e(ery man at the same #ri%e, &'t is %on%ea$ed, as o##osed to that harmony whi%h is a$ways mere eE'a$i-ing, the e$imination of tension, $e(e$ing.FO Who, then, is the enemy of s'%h a hierar%hi% order2 The ;an's7head of non7hierar%hi% ega$itarianism with its two fa%es, &o'rgeois7$i&era$ indi(id'a$ism and Comm'nist ega$itarianism, gro'nded in the ;'deo7Christian s#irit'a$ity, whi%h is th's the %ommon so'r%e and fo'ndation of &oth o##osed strands of modern #o$iti%s, the $i&era$7demo%rati% indi(id'a$ism and the Comm'nist ega$itarianism) ,n a%%ordan%e to its mode, the 9ewish' (hristian domination #$ays a do'&$e game, taking sim'$taneo's$y the side of the >di%tatorshi# of the #ro$etariat and the side of the $i&era$7demo%rati% %'$t'ra$ stri(ing1 for some time, this do'&$e game wi$$ %ontin'e to %on%ea$ o'r a$ready7#resent $oss of roots and ina&i$ity to take essentia$ de%isions.(CFI) *nd /eidegger goes e(en a ste# f'rther here against the $i&era$7demo%rati% do"a) in the a$ternati(e &etween Comm'nism and $i&era$ism, the +ng$ish demo%rati% $i&era$ism is the more dangero's one) The &o'rgeois7Christian form of the +ng$ish >Bo$she(ism is the most dangero's one. Witho't its annihi$ation, the modern era wi$$ %ontin'e to &e maintained.(CGI) The distr'st of demo%ra%y is a %onstant feat're of /eideggers tho'ght, e(en after the :ehre1 we find it in his <iet-s%he7$e%t'res from QP?G7I (where he wrote that +'ro#e a$ways wants to %$ing to >demo%ra%y and does not want to see that this wo'$d &e a fatef'$ death for itFQ), as we$$ as in his #osth'mo's$y #'&$ished .piegel inter(iew

28

where he e"#ressed his do'&t that demo%ra%y is the #o$iti%a$ form that fits &est modern te%hno$ogy. /epetition and the %ew So we are &a%k at Chestertons notion of %on%ea$ing a &ody in a #i$e of %or#ses) when one %ondemns /eideggers entire #hi$oso#hi%a$ edifi%e as !as%ist, one masks ones ina&i$ity to identify a (one) %or#se : the sing'$ar ideo$ogi%a$ feat're whi%h ga(e a !as%ist to'%h to a$$ others 7 &y %onstr'%ting a pile of %or#ses %a$$ed /eideggers !as%ist tho'ght. ,n this way, one %on%edes too m'%h to the enemy) there is nothing inherent$y !as%ist in the notions of de7%ision, re#etition, ass'ming ones destiny, et%. (or, %$oser to ordinary #o$iti%s, in the notions of mass dis%i#$ine, sa%rifi%e for the %o$$e%ti(e, et%.). ,n short, one sho'$d not a$$ow the enemy to define the terrain of the &att$e and its stakes, so that we end '# a&stra%t$y o##osing him, s'##orting a negati(e %o#y of what he wants. To &e %$ear and &r'ta$ to the end, there is a $esson to &e $earned from /ermann Goerings re#$y, in the ear$y QPCOs, to some fanati%a$ <a-i who asked him why did he #rote%t a we$$7known ;ew from de#ortation) ,n this %ity, , de%ide who is a ;ewD (The answer, in%identa$$y, attri&'ted a$ready to many other German fig'res who #rote%ted their #ri(i$eged ;ews, from Bismar%k to Kar$ B'eger.) ,n this %ity, it is 's who de%ided what is Beft, so we sho'$d 9'st ignore $i&era$ a%%'sations of o'r in%onsisten%y. !or e"am#$e, in his re(iew of the G'e(ara7fi$m The )otorcycle $iaries, 8a'$ Berman %riti%a$$y %$aimed that the entire mo(ie, in its %on%e#t and tone, e"'des a Christo$ogi%a$ %'$t of martyrdom, a %'$t of adoration for the s#irit'a$$y s'#erior #erson who is (eering toward death = #re%ise$y the kind of adoration that Batin *meri%a5s Catho$i% Ch'r%h #romoted for se(era$ %ent'ries, with misera&$e %onseE'en%es. The re&e$$ion against rea%tionary Catho$i%ism in this mo(ie is itse$f an e"#ression of rea%tionary Catho$i%ism. The traditiona$ %h'r%hes of Batin *meri%a are f'$$ of stat'es of gr'esome &$eeding saints. *nd the maso%histi% a$$'re of those stat'es is #re%ise$y what yo' see in the mo(ie5s many de#i%tions of yo'ng Che %o'ghing o't his $'ngs from asthma and testing himse$f &y swimming in %o$d water.F To this, one sho'$d sim#$y answer) tr'e, &'t : so what2 Why sho'$d not re(o$'tionary #o$iti%s take o(er the Catho$i% %'$t of martyrdom2 *nd one sho'$d not &e afraid to go to (what for many $i&era$s wo'$d &e) the end and to say the same a&o't Beni Aiefenstah$. /er seems to $end itse$f to a te$eo$ogi%a$ reading, #rogressing towards its dark %on%$'sion. ,t &egan with Bergfilme whi%h %e$e&rated heroism and &odi$y effort in the e"treme %onditions of mo'ntain %$im&ing1 it went on to her two <a-i do%'mentaries, %e$e&rating the #o$iti%a$ and s#ort &odi$y dis%i#$ine, %on%entration and strength of wi$$1 then, after Wor$d War ,,, in her #hoto a$&'ms, she redis%o(ered her idea$ of &odi$y &ea'ty and gra%ef'$ se$f7mastery in the <'&i *fri%an tri&e1 fina$$y, in the $ast de%ades, she $earned the diffi%'$t art of dee# sea di(ing and started shooting do%'mentaries a&o't the strange $ife in the dark de#ths of the sea. We th's seem to o&tain a %$ear tra9e%tory from the to# to the &ottom) we &egin with the indi(id'a$s str'gg$ing at the mo'ntain to#s and grad'a$$y des%ent, ti$$ we rea%h the amor#ho's thri(ing of Bife itse$f at the &ottom of the sea 7 is not what she en%o'ntered down there her '$timate o&9e%t, the o&s%ene and irresisti&$y thri(ing eterna$

29

Bife itse$f, what she was sear%hing for a$$ a$ong2 *nd does this not a##$y a$so to her #ersona$ity2 ,t effe%ti(e$y seems that the fear of those who are fas%inated &y Beni is no $onger TWhen wi$$ she die2U, &'t TWi$$ she +R+A die2U 7 a$tho'gh we rationa$$y knew she wi$$ soon die, we somehow didn5t rea$$y &e$ie(e it, se%ret$y %on(in%ed that she wi$$ go on fore(er, so hear death was a gen'ine s'r#rise. This %ontin'ity is 's'a$$y gi(en a T#roto7!as%istU twist, as is e"em#$ari$y the %ase in the famo's S'san Sontag essay on Beni T!as%inating !as%ismU. The idea is that e(en her #re7 and #ost7<a-i fi$ms arti%'$ate the (ision of $ife whi%h is T#roto7!as%istU) Beni5s !as%ism is dee#er than her dire%t %e$e&ration of the <a-i #o$iti%s, it resides a$ready in her #re7#o$iti%a$ aestheti%s of Bife, in her fas%ination with the &ea'tif'$ &odies dis#$aying their dis%i#$ined mo(ements4 8erha#s, it is time to #ro&$emati-e this to#os. Bet 's take $as laue 8icht) is it not #ossi&$e to read the fi$m a$so in e"a%t$y the o##osite way2 ,s ;'nta, the $one and wi$d mo'ntain gir$, not an o't%ast who a$most &e%omes the (i%tim of a #ogrom &y the (i$$agers : a #ogrom whi%h %annot &'t remind 's of the anti7 Semiti% #ogroms2 8erha#s, it is not an a%%ident that Be$a Ba$asy, Beni5s $o(er at that time who %o7wrote the s%enario with her, was a 6ar"ist4 The #ro&$em is here m'%h more genera$, it goes far &eyond Beni. Bet 's take the (ery o##osite of Beni, *rno$d S%hoen&erg) in the se%ond #art of Harmonienlehre, his ma9or theoreti%a$ manifesto from QPQQ, he de(e$o#s his o##osition to tona$ m'si% in terms whi%h, s'#erfi%ia$$y, a$most re%a$$ $ater <a-i anti7Semiti% tra%ts) the tona$ m'si% has &e%ome a Tdiseased,U TdegeneratedU wor$d in need of a %$eansing so$'tion1 the tona$ system has gi(en in to Tin&reeding and in%estU1 romanti% %hords s'%h as the diminished se(enth are Therma#hroditi%,U T(agrantU and T%osmo#o$itanU4 nothing easier than to %$aim that s'%h a messiani%7a#o%a$y#ti% attit'de is #art of the same Ts#irit'a$ sit'ationU whi%h ga(e &irth to the <a-i Tfina$ so$'tion.U This, howe(er, is #re%ise$y the %on%$'sion one sho'$d *R.,L) what makes <a-ism re#'$si(e is not the rhetori% of fina$ so$'tion *S SHC/, &'t the %on%rete twist it gi(es to it. *nother #o#'$ar to#i% of this kind of ana$ysis, %$oser to Beni, is the a$$eged$y T#roto7!as%istU %hara%ter of the mass %horeogra#hy dis#$aying dis%i#$ined mo(ements of tho'sands of &odies (#arades, mass #erforman%es on the stadi'ms, et%.)1 if one finds it a$so in So%ia$ism, one immediate$y draws the %on%$'sion a&o't a Tdee#er so$idarityU &etween the two Ttota$itarianisms.U S'%h a #ro%ed're, the (ery #rototy#e of ideo$ogi%a$ $i&era$ism, misses the #oint) not on$y are s'%h mass #erforman%es not inherent$y !as%ist1 they are not e(en Tne'tra$,U waiting to &e a##ro#riated &y Beft or Aight 7 it was <a-ism who sto$e them and a##ro#riated them from the workers5 mo(ement, their origina$ site of &irth. <one of the T#roto7!as%istU e$ements is per se !as%ist, what makes them T!as%istU is on$y their s#e%ifi% arti%'$ation : or, to #'t it in Ste#hen ;ay Go'$d5s terms, a$$ these e$ements are Te"7a#tedU &y !as%ism. ,n other words, there is no T!as%ism a!ant la lettre"; ecause it is the letter itself (the nomination) which makes out of the undle of elements Fascism proper. *$ong the same $ines, one sho'$d radi%a$$y re9e%t the notion that dis%i#$ine (from se$f7%ontro$ to &odi$y training) is a T#roto7!as%istU feat're 7 the (ery #redi%ate T#roto7 !as%istU sho'$d &e a&andoned) it is the e"em#$ary %ase of a #se'do7%on%e#t whose f'n%tion is to &$o%k %on%e#t'a$ ana$ysis. When we say that the organi-ed s#e%ta%$e of tho'sands of &odies (or, say, the admiration of s#orts whi%h demand high effort and se$f7 %ontro$ $ike mo'ntain %$im&ing) is T#roto7!as%ist,U we say stri%t$y nothing, we 9'st e"#ress a (ag'e asso%iation whi%h masks o'r ignoran%e. So when, three de%ades ago, K'ng !' fi$ms were #o#'$ar (Br'%e Bee et%.), was it not o&(io's that we were dea$ing with a gen'ine working %$ass ideo$ogy of yo'ngsters whose on$y means of s'%%ess was

30

the dis%i#$inary training of their on$y #ossession, their &odies2 S#ontaneity and the T$et it goU attit'de of ind'$ging in e"%essi(e freedoms &e$ong to those who ha(e the means to afford it : those who ha(e nothing ha(e on$y their dis%i#$ine. The T&adU &odi$y dis%i#$ine, if there is one, is not the %o$$e%ti(e training, &'t, rather, 9ogging and &ody7&'i$ding as #art of the <ew *ge myth of the rea$i-ation of the Se$f5s inner #otentia$s : no wonder that the o&session with one5s &ody is an a$most o&$igatory #art of the #assage of e"7Beftist radi%a$s into the Tmat'rityU of #ragmati% #o$iti%s) from ;ane !onda to ;os%hka !is%her, the T#eriod of $aten%yU &etween the two #hases was marked &y the fo%'s on one5s own &ody. So, &a%k to Beni, what this means is not that one sho'$d dismiss her <a-i engagement as a $imited 'nfort'nate e#isode. The tr'e #ro&$em is to s'stain the tension whi%h %'ts thro'gh her work) the tension &etween the artisti% #erfe%tion of her #ro%ed'res and the ideo$ogi%a$ #ro9e%t whi%h T%o7o#tedU them. Why sho'$d her %ase &e different from that of +-ra 8o'nd, W.B. Kates, and other modernists with !as%ist tenden%ies who $ong ago &e%ame #art of o'r artisti% %anon2 8erha#s, the sear%h for the Ttr'e ideo$ogi%a$ identityU of Beni is a mis$eading one) there is no s'%h identity, she was gen'ine$y thrown aro'nd, in%onsistent, %a'ght in a %o&we& of %onf$i%ting for%es. So, &a%k to /eidegger : in his <a-i engagement, he was not tota$$y wrong : the tragedy is that he was almost right, de#$oying the str'%t're of a re(o$'tionary a%t and then distorting it &y gi(ing it a !as%ist twist. /eidegger was %$osest to tr'th #re%ise$y where he erred most, in his writings from the $ate QP Os to the mid7QP?Os. .'r task th's is to repeat /eidegger and retrie(e this $ost dimension3#otentia$ of his tho'ght. ,n QP?I3N, /eidegger wrote) What is %onser(ati(e remains &ogged down in the historiogra#hi%a$1 on$y what is re(o$'tionary attains the de#th of history. Ae(o$'tion does not mean here mere s'&(ersion and destr'%tion &'t an '#hea(a$ and re%reating of the %'stomary so that the &eginning might &e restr'%t'red. *nd &e%a'se the origina$ &e$ongs to the &eginning, the restr'%t'ring of the &eginning is ne(er the #oor imitation of what was ear$ier1 it is entire$y other and ne(erthe$ess the same.F? ,n itse$f, is this not a who$$y #ertinent des%ri#tion of the re(o$'tion a$ong Ben9amins $ines2 Ae%a$$ the o$d e"am#$e #ro(ided &y Wa$ter Ben9amin) the .%to&er Ae(o$'tion re#eated the !ren%h Ae(o$'tion, redeeming its fai$'re, 'nearthing and re#eating the same im#'$se. *$ready for Kierkegaard, re#etition is Tin(erted memory,U a mo(ement forward, the #rod'%tion of the <ew, and not the re#rod'%tion of the .$d. TThere is nothing new 'nder the s'nU is the strongest %ontrast to the mo(ement of re#etition. So, it is not on$y that re#etition is (one of the modes of) the emergen%e of the <ew : the %ew can 0%8< emerge through repetition. The key to this #arado" is, of %o'rse, what Le$e'-e designates as the differen%e &etween the Rirt'a$ and the *%t'a$ (and whi%h : why not2 : one %an a$so determine as the differen%e &etween S#irit and Better). Bet 's take a great #hi$oso#her $ike Kant : there are two modes to re#eat him) either one sti%ks to his $etter and f'rther e$a&orates or %hanges his system, as neo7Kantians ('# to /a&ermas and B'% !erry) are doing1 or, one tries to regain the %reati(e im#'$se that Kant himse$f &etrayed in the a%t'a$i-ation of his system (i.e., to %onne%t to what was a$ready Tin Kant more than Kant himse$f,U more than his e"#$i%it system, its e"%essi(e %ore). There are, a%%ording$y, two modes of &etraying the #ast. The tr'e &etraya$ is an ethi%o7theoreti%a$ a%t of the highest fide$ity) one has to &etray the $etter of Kant in order

31

to remain faithf'$ to (and re#eat) the Ts#iritU of his tho'ght. ,t is #re%ise$y when one remains faithf'$ to the $etter of Kant that one rea$$y &etrays the %ore of his tho'ght, the %reati(e im#'$se 'nder$ying it. .ne sho'$d &ring this #arado" to its %on%$'sion) it is not on$y that one %an remain rea$$y faithf'$ to an a'thor &y way of &etraying him (the a%t'a$ $etter of his tho'ght)1 at a more radi%a$ $e(e$, the in(erse statement ho$ds e(en more 7 one %an on$y tr'$y &etray an a'thor &y way of re#eating him, &y way of remaining faithf'$ to the %ore of his tho'ght. ,f one does not re#eat an a'thor (in the a'thenti% Kierkegaardian sense of the term), &'t mere$y T%riti%i-esU him, mo(es e$sewhere, t'rns him aro'nd, et%., this effe%ti(e$y means that one 'nknowing$y remains within his hori-on, his %on%e#t'a$ fie$d. FC When G.K. Chesterton des%ri&es his %on(ersion to Christianity, he %$aims that he Ttried to &e some ten min'tes in ad(an%e of the tr'th. *nd , fo'nd that , was eighteen years &ehind it.UFF Loes the same not ho$d e(en more for those who, today, des#erate$y try to %at%h '# with the <ew &y way of fo$$owing the $atest T#ost7U fashion, and are th's %ondemned to remain fore(er eighteen years &ehind the tr'$y <ew2 ,n his ironi% %omments on the !ren%h Ae(o$'tion, 6ar" o##oses re(o$'tionary enth'siasm to the so&ering effe%t of the Tmorning afterU) the a%t'a$ res'$t of the s'&$ime re(o$'tionary e"#$osion, of the +(ent of freedom, eE'a$ity, and &rotherhood, is the misera&$e 'ti$itarian3egotisti% 'ni(erse of market %a$%'$ations. (*nd, in%identa$$y, is not this ga# e(en wider in the %ase of the .%to&er Ae(o$'tion2) /owe(er, one sho'$d not sim#$ify 6ar") his #oint is not the rather %ommonsensi%a$ insight into how the ('$gar rea$ity of %ommer%e is the Ttr'thU of the theater of re(o$'tionary enth'siasm, Twhat a$$ the f'ss rea$$y was a&o't.U ,n the re(o$'tionary e"#$osion as an +(ent, another 'to#ian dimension shines thro'gh, the dimension of 'ni(ersa$ eman%i#ation whi%h, #re%ise$y, is the e"%ess &etrayed &y the market rea$ity whi%h takes o(er Tthe day afterU : as s'%h, this e"%ess is not sim#$y a&o$ished, dismissed as irre$e(ant, &'t, as it were, transposed into the !irtual state, %ontin'ing to ha'nt the eman%i#atory imaginary as a dream waiting to &e rea$i-ed. The e"%ess of re(o$'tionary enth'siasm o(er its own Ta%t'a$ so%ia$ &aseU or s'&stan%e is th's $itera$$y that of an attri&'te7effe%t o(er its own s'&stantia$ %a'se, a ghost7$ike +(ent waiting for its #ro#er em&odiment. .n$y re#etition &rings o't #'re differen%e. When, in his famo's ana$ysis in Being and Time, /eidegger des%ri&es the e"7stati% str'%t're of $aseins tem#ora$ity as the %ir%'$ar mo(ement whi%h goes from f't're thro'gh the #ast to the #resent, it is not eno'gh to 'nderstand this as a mo(ement in whi%h ,, starting from the f't're (the #ossi&i$ities o#ened to me, my #ro9e%ts, et%.), go &a%k to the #ast (ana$y-e the te"t're of the histori%a$ sit'ation into whi%h , was thrown, in whi%h , find myse$f), and, from it, engage in my #resent in order to rea$i-e my #ro9e%ts. When /eidegger %hara%teri-es f't're itse$f as ha(ing7&een 3gesewene3 or, more #re%ise$y, something that is as ha(ing7&een 3gewesende3, he $o%ates f't're itse$f into the #ast 7 not, of %o'rse, in the sense that we $i(e in a %$osed 'ni(erse in whi%h e(ery f't're #ossi&i$ity is a$ready %ontained in the #ast, so that we %an on$y re#eat, rea$i-e, what a$ready ,S there in the inherited te"t're, &'t in the m'%h more radi%a$ sense of the o#enness of the #ast itse$f) the #ast itse$f is not sim#$y what there was, it %ontains hidden, non7rea$i-ed #otentia$s, and the a'thenti% f't're is the re#etition3retrie(a$ of this #ast, not of the #ast as it was, &'t of that in the #ast whi%h the #ast itse$f, in its rea$ity, &etrayed, stif$ed, fai$ed to rea$i-e. ,t is in this sense that one sho'$d today re#eat Benin) %hoosing Benin as ones hero (to #ara#hrase /eidegger) not in order to fo$$ow him and do the same today, &'t to re#eat3retrie(e him in the #re%ise sense of &ringing o't the non7rea$i-ed #otentia$s of Beninism.

32

*nd one sho'$d not &e afraid to %on%ei(e in these terms the (ery to'%hy to#i% of /eideggers re$ation to <a-ism. *$tho'gh it is tr'e that, in %ontrast to the Aea$$y7+"isting So%ia$ism, one does not ta$k a&o't the Aea$$y7+"isting !as%ism (sin%e one did not e"#erien%e the a%t'a$ !as%ism as the &etraya$ of its inherent eman%i#atory #otentia$s), there is nonethe$ess a #hi$oso#her who did engage in a kind of %ritiE'e of the Aea$$y7 +"isting <a-ism on &eha$f of its tr'e #otentia$s (its inner greatness) &etrayed &y its ra%ist7te%hno$ogi%a$ nihi$isti% rea$ity : none other than /eidegger, of %o'rse. *fter his m'%h7de&ated disa##ointment with the rea$ity of the <a-i regime in QP?C, /eideggers effort thro'gho't the QP?Os was effe%ti(e$y to sa$(age this &etrayed inner greatness, the wor$d7histori% #otentia$, of the <a-i mo(ement : therein resides the '$timate #o$iti%a$ wager of /eideggers end$ess (ariations on the to#i% of /oe$der$in and the fate of Germany.FG What /eidegger was $ooking for in <a-ism (to a(oid a mis'nderstanding) not on$y d'e to an a%%identa$ error in his #ersona$ 9'dgment, &'t d'e to the f$aws of his theoreti%a$ edifi%e itse$f) was a re(o$'tionary +(ent, so that e(en some meas'res he im#osed on the !rei&'rg 'ni(ersity d'ring his &rief ten're as its re%tor &ear witness to his intention to ena%t there a kind of %'$t'ra$ re(o$'tion (&ringing together st'dents with workers and so$diers : whi%h, in itse$f, is not a !as%ist meas're, &'t something 6aoists tried to do in their C'$t'ra$ Ae(o$'tion). .ne is th's tem#ted to a##$y to /eidegger *ndre Gides sar%asti% %omment on Theo#hi$e Ga'tier) in QP??, he #$ayed a %r'%ia$ ro$e in German a%ademi% #o$iti%s, on$y he was not '# to this ro$e. From Heidegger to $ri!e *$tho'gh /eideggers a$most #ho&i% o(ersensiti(ity to mora$ity %an &e easi$y a%%o'nted for as an im#$i%it admission of his own ethi%a$$y re#'$si(e &eha(io'r and $a%k of e$ementary ethi%a$ attit'des, his o##onents insisten%e on these same feat'res of /eidegger as a #erson is a$so fa$se : as if, &y demonstrating /eideggers #ersona$ $a%k of e$ementary ethi%a$ standards, one %an a(oid the hard task of %onfronting the iss'es #osed &y /eideggers tho'ght. There is nonethe$ess something dist'r&ing in /eideggers #ro(er&ia$ a$$ergy against any mention of mora$ %onsiderations1 in his reading of 8$ato in the QP?Q7? seminar, he e(en tries to #'rify the 8$atoni% to agathon from a$$ $inks with mora$ goodness thro'gh a ski$f'$ referen%e to one of the e(eryday 'ses of the e"%$amation GoodD) goodD means) ,t wi$$ &e doneD ,t is de%idedD ,t has nothing to do with the meaning of moral goodness1 ethi%s has r'ined the gro'nding meaning of this word. .ne %an th's easi$y imagine, at the %on%$'sion of the Wahnsee %onferen%e, /eydri%h e"%$aiming) GoodD, 'sing the term in the a'thenti% 8$atoni% sense (,t wi$$ &e doneD ,t is de%idedD)4 The fa%t that there is a rea$ #hi$oso#hi%a$ #ro&$em we are dea$ing with here %an &e demonstrated &y a %$ose reading of /eideggers seminar on S%he$$ings Treatise on !reedom, in whi%h /eidegger has to admit a dimension of radi%a$ +(i$ whi%h %annot &e histori%i-ed, i.e., red'%ed to the nihi$ism of modern te%hno$ogy. ,t is the merit of Bret La(is to ana$yse in detai$ this dead$o%k of /eideggers tho'ght. ,n his %$ose reading of /eidegger, Lerrida tried to demonstrate how S#irit 3+eist3 is the 'nde%onstr'%ted sym#toma$ #oint in /eideggers edifi%eFI1 Bret La(is did the same thing for the notion of the Wi$$.FN * %onsens's is grad'a$$y emerging in /eidegger st'dies that there are not two, &'t, rather, three distin%t #hases of his tho'ght) the ear$y #hase of the ana$yti% of $asein (.ein und =eit)1 the midd$e #hase of the

33

assertion of heroi% histori%ity (from the %onferen%e What is 6eta#hysi%s2 to the man's%ri#t >om *reignis : the key #'&$ished te"t Introduction to )etaphysics)1 and the $ast #hase of the withdrawa$ from te%hno$ogi%a$ nihi$ism into #oetry and tho'ght, 'nder the sign of +elassenheit. ,n his first #hase, /eidegger ignores the #henomenon of the Wi$$1 in the se%ond #hase, it is for%ef'$$y asserted, and we$$ &eyond /eideggers <a-i engagement (in >om *reignis man's%ri#t, whi%h is 's'a$$y read as the &eginning of $ate /eidegger, he sti$$ s#eaks of the wi$$ to *reignis)1 in the $ast #hase, as the res'$t of /eideggers %onfrontation with <iet-s%he, Wi$$ is, on the %ontrary, #osited as the (ery %ore of modern s'&9e%ti(ity, and th's as that whi%h has to &e o(er%ome if mankind is to $ea(e &ehind the nihi$ism that threatens its (ery essen%e. Thro'gh a detai$ed #ers#i%'o's ana$ysis, La(is shows how this tri#artite di(ision is not %$ear) a$tho'gh not e"#$i%it$y themati-ed, Wi$$ is not on$y $'rking in the &a%kgro'nd a$ready in the first #hase1 m'%h more %r'%ia$, it #ersists to the end, mysterio's$y #o##ing '# in 'ne"#e%ted ways. Where we disagree with La(is is in how to inter#ret this strange #ersisten%e of the Wi$$, whi%h %ontin'es to ha'nt /eidegger e(en when its o(er%oming &e%omes the (ery fo%'s of his tho'ght. Hnder the %$ear inf$'en%e of his in7de#th know$edge of ;a#anese Ven B'ddhism, La(is reads this #ersisten%e as a sign of +elassenheit as an 'nfinished #ro9e%t) it &asi%a$$y indi%ates that /eidegger did not s'%%eed in thoro'gh$y de%onstr'%ting the Wi$$, so that it is '# to 's, who %ontin'e in his #ath, to a%%om#$ish the 9o& and draw a$$ the %onseE'en%es from +elassenheit. .'r wager is, howe(er, that the #ersisten%e of the Wi$$ e(en in the $atest /eidegger, so &ri$$iant$y dis%erned &y La(is, rather demonstrates the ins'ffi%ien%y of /eideggers %riti%a$ ana$ysis of modern s'&9e%ti(ity : not in the sense that /eidegger didnt go far eno'gh, and th's remained himse$f marked &y s'&9e%ti(ity, &'t in the sense that he o(er$ooked a non7meta#hysi%a$ %ore of modern s'&9e%ti(ity itse$f) the most f'ndamenta$ dimension of the a&yss of s'&9e%ti(ity %annot &e gras#ed thro'gh the $enses of the notion of s'&9e%ti(ity as the attit'de of te%hno$ogi%a$ domination.FP ,n other words, it is the symptom of +elassenheit, an indi%ation of the $imitation of this notion itse$f, not on$y of o'r fai$'re to f'$$y de(e$o# its #otentia$s.GO La(is #ro#oses the distin%tion &etween (Q) what /eidegger %a$$s >the wi$$ of s'&9e%ti(ity, a f'ndamenta$ (dis)att'nement that has risen '# and #re(ai$ed in a #arti%'$ar e#o%ha$ history of meta#hysi%s, and ( ) what we ha(e (inter#reti(e$y s'##$ementing /eidegger) %a$$ed >'r7wi$$ing, a non7histori%a$ dissonant e"%ess whi%h ha'nts the #ro#er essen%e of non7wi$$ing(?O?). /eidegger dire%t$y a##roa%hes this #oint in his reading of a fragment of *na"imander on order and disorder, where he %onsiders the #ossi&i$ity that an entity may e(en insist 3 estehen3 '#on its whi$e so$e$y to remain more #resent, in the sense of #erd'ring 3Bestaendigen3.That whi%h $ingers #ersists 3 eharrt3 in its #resen%ing. ,n this way it e"tri%ates itse$f from its transitory whi$e. ,t strikes the wi$f'$ #ose of #ersisten%e, no $onger %on%erning itse$f with whate(er e$se is #resent. ,t stiffens : as if this were the on$y way to $inger : and aims so$e$y for %ontin'an%e and s'&sisten%e.GQ La(iss thesis is that this re&e$$io's whi$ing refers to a non7histori%a$ 'r7wi$$ing, a wi$$ing whi%h is not $imited to the e#o%h of modern s'&9e%ti(ity and its wi$$ to #ower, &'t &e$ongs to the %ore of Being itse$f. This is a$so why La(is is right in dismissing /annah *rendts reading of this %ra(ing to #ersist whi%h red'%es it to the traditiona$ theo$ogi%a$ notion of a wi$f'$ re&e$$ion against the >order of Creation as s'%hG ) this 'r7wi$$ing is not the

34

egotisti% withdrawa$7into7itse$f of a #arti%'$ar %reat're from the g$o&a$ .rder, it is a #er(ersion ins%ri&ed into this .rder itse$f) ,s there not a #ro&$em of >wi$$ing that is an ineradi%a&$e as#e%t of mans ineradi%a&$e finit'de2 Wo'$d not a #ro&$em of >wi$$ing : e(en if not that of its s#e%ifi% histori%a$ determinations3e"a%er&ations in the e#o%hs of meta#hysi%s : remain e(en in the other &eginning2( N ) What /eidegger %$ear$y saw is what great mysti%s in the Ahein tradition (+%khart, Bohme) a$so saw) the form'$a of +(i$ as the distan%e or !a$$ from di(ine Goodness is not eno'gh1 the E'estion to &e raised is) how %an this distan%e o%%'r2 The on$y %onseE'ent answer is) there has to &e an in(ersion in God himse$f, a str'gg$e, dissonan%e, a$ready in the (ery heart of the di(ine .rigin. ,n the same way, /eidegger gro'nds the e"%ess of s'&9e%ti(ity, its nihi$isti% forgetf'$ness of Being, in a strife3dis%ord at the (ery heart of Being. 7 La(is draws the same %on%$'sion from /eideggers os%i$$ations in his reading of S%he$$ings Treatise on Freedom) radi%a$ +(i$ is most &r'ta$$y e"#osed not in the faceless defacing te%hno$ogy of the e"termination %am#s, &'t rather in the fa%t that it is #ossi&$e 343 for a #erson to $ook another #erson in the fa%e and, %$ear$y sensing the withdrawa$ of interiority, wi$f'$$y #'$$ the trigger, or #oint a finger in the dire%tion of the gas %ham&ers. The wi%kedness of this face'to'face defacement 7 this wi%ked wi$$ to #ower that wi$$s the m'rder of the .ther as 0ther, in other words, that wi$$s to maintain a re%ognition of the .ther #re%ise$y in order to take dia&o$i%a$ #$eas're in annihi$ating his or her otherness : radi%a$$y e"%eeds the e(i$ of the %a$%'$ating ma%hinations of te%hno$ogy. 343 The tho'ght$ess red'%tion of the .ther to a %og in the whee$ of te%hno$ogi%a$ ma%hination is not yet the wi%ked wi$$ to #ower that maintains a re%ognition of the a$terity of the .ther #re%ise$y in order to take dia&o$i%a$ #$eas're in %onE'ering her resistan%e and witnessing her #ain. This terri&$e fa%t of e(i$ %annot &e e"#$ained te%hno$ogi%a$$y. /eideggers history of meta#hysi%s, whi%h #ro%eeds to %'$minate in the te%hno$ogi%a$ wi$$ to wi$$ 343, #asses &y the a&yss of this wi%ked wi$$ to #ower. *fter /eidegger therefore, we m'st ste# &a%k to think the originary dissonant e"%ess of 'r7wi$$ing as the root #otentia$, not 9'st of the fa%e$ess defa%ing te%hno$ogi%a$ wi$$ to wi$$, &'t a$so of this wi%ked fa%e7to7fa%e defa%ing wi$$ to #ower. 6oreo(er, insofar as h'man freedom %o'$d not &e deta%hed from a res#onsi&i$ity with regard to this non7te%hno$ogi%a$ e(i$ wi$$ to #ower, a $imit in /eideggers thinking of e(i$ wo'$d a$so mark a $imit in his thinking of h'man freedom.( PI7 PN) This, then, is where /eidegger was wrong in his infamo's insertion of the /o$o%a'st in the same series as agri%'$t'ra$ e"#$oitation of nat're) What is >s%anda$o's$y inadeE'ate here is that /eideggers tho'ght a##ears 'na&$e to mark an essentia$ differen%e &etween the red'%tion of (egeta&$es to standing7reser(e for the #rod'%tion and %ons'm#tion of foodst'ffs and the $ining '# of #ersons to &e systemati%a$$y m'rdered( PI). So what a&o't the %o'nter7arg'ment in /eideggers defen%e a%%ording to whi%h, it is not /eidegger &'t modern te%hno$ogy itse$f whi%h red'%es at the same $e(e$ of a(ai$a&$e3dis#osa&$e o&9e%ts (egeta&$es and h'mans2 The answer is %$ear) /eidegger is sim#$y (and %r'%ia$$y) wrong in red'%ing /o$o%a'st to a te%hno$ogi%a$ #rod'%tion of %or#ses1 there is in e(ents $ike the /o$o%a'st a %r'%ia$ e$ement of the wi$$ to

35

h'mi$iate and h'rt the other. The (i%tim is treated as an o&9e%t in a ref$e"i(e way, in order to h'mi$iate him f'rther, in %$ear %ontrast to the ind'stria$$y #rod'%ed (egeta&$e, where this intention to h'rt is a&sent : in ind'stria$i-ed agri%'$t're, a (egeta&$e sim#$y is red'%ed to an o&9e%t of te%hno$ogi%a$ mani#'$ation. This is a$so why the notion of tra'ma has no #$a%e in his 'ni(erse) does, in /eideggerian terms, the %on%e#t of tra'ma, of a tra'mati% en%o'nter, not designate #re%ise$y the 'nthinka&$e #oint at whi%h an onti% intr'sion gets so e"%essi(e$y #owerf'$ that it shatters the (ery onto$ogi%a$ hori-on whi%h #ro(ides the %oordinates within whi%h rea$ity is dis%$osed to 's2 This is why a tra'mati% en%o'nter entai$s a $oss of rea$ity whi%h has to &e 'nderstood in the strong #hi$oso#hi%a$ sense of the $oss of onto$ogi%a$ hori-on 7 in tra'ma, we are momentari$y e"#osed to the raw onti% thing not yet %o(ered3s%reened &y the onto$ogi%a$ hori-on. This, of %o'rse, is what ha##ens when we witness something $ike the /o$o%a'st) the e%$i#se of the Wor$d itse$f. .ne has to take this statement at its most $itera$) an a%t of thoro'gh +(i$ threatens the (ery Wor$d7dis%$os're. La(iss so$'tion 7 to %$ear$y disting'ish 343 &etween the onto$ogi%a$ ne%essity of erran%y and the inordinate e"%ess of >$etting onese$f &e $ed astray( PP) 7 %omes dangero's$y %$ose to the a$$ too sim#$e distin%tion &etween the onto$ogi%a$$y ne%essary norma$ $e(e$ of +(i$ and the onti% e"%ess o(er this norma$ $e(e$ (something akin to o$d /er&ert 6ar%'ses distin%tion &etween ne%essary $i&idina$ re#ression and the 'nne%essary e"%essi(e re#ression). The #ro&$em with this so$'tion is that it do'&$y misses the #oint. !irst, it o&(io's$y misses /eideggers #oint, whi%h is, on the o##osite, that the tr'e e"%ess is the onto$ogi%a$ e(i$ of te%hno$ogi%a$ nihi$ism : %om#ared with it, onti% e"%esses are a minor misha#, so that one might e(en risk a taste$ess /eideggerian #ara#hrase of Bre%ht) What is a s$a'ghter of tho'sands of enemies %om#ared to the te%hno$ogi%a$ red'%tion of man itse$f to an o&9e%t of te%hno$ogi%a$ mani#'$ationD Se%ond, it misses a dimension iso$ated a$ready &y German mysti%s from +%khart onwards) the (ery non7histori%a$ e"%essi(e &asi% h'man e(i$ (the intention to h'rt and h'mi$iate the other) is not a sim#$e fa$$7off from mans onto$ogi%a$ essen%e, &'t has to &e gro'nded in this onto$ogi%a$ essen%e. Two f'rther (inter%onne%ted) E'estions are to &e raised here. The first one, naJ(e &'t ne%essary) does this not '$timate$y a&so$(e man from res#onsi&i$ity for %on%rete +(i$, when +(i$ is gro'nded in the %on(o$'tions of Being itse$f2 ,n other words, the E'estion is whether /eidegger, in as%ri&ing the origin of e(i$ to a negati(ity in &eing itse$f, im#$i%it$y 9'stifies e(i$ as an onto$ogio%a$$y ne%essitated erran%y( NP). The se%ond one, more f'ndamenta$7onto$ogi%a$) is this strife in the heart of Being #art of its /armony itse$f, in the sense that Being is the (ery hidden %on%ord of the str'gg$ing #o$es, or is it a more radi%a$ dis%ord, something whi%h derai$s the (ery /armony of Being2 .r, as La(is #'ts it) ,s &eing a f'g'e into whi%h a$$ dissonan%e is in the end ne%essari$y harmoni-ed2 .r does e(i$ ha'nt the gift of &eing as its non7s'&$ata&$e dissonant e"%ess2( PC) /owe(er, against La(iss %$aim that the first o#tion #'$$s /eideggers tho'ght &a%k towards the systemati%ity of idea$ism( PC), one sho'$d insist that it is, on the %ontrary, the #re7 modern (#re7idea$ist) #aganism whose '$timate hori-on is the higher harmony of the str'gg$ing for%es, and that s'&9e%ti(ity at its most f'ndamenta$ designates #re%ise$y a dissonant e"%ess whi%h %annot &e %o7o#ted into a higher harmony of the s'&stantia$ order of Being. To answer these E'estions, it is not eno'gh to think with /eidegger against /eidegger, i.e., to &ring the 'nfinished /eidegger #ro9e%t to its end. ,n other words, immanent %ritiE'e is not eno'gh here1 one has to a&andon /eideggers &asi% #remise of a dia&o$i%a$ in(ersion of the f'g'e of Being1 $et 's go &a%k to /eideggers reading to

36

*na"imander. !or anyone minima$$y (ersed in !re'd and Ba%an, /eideggers reading of *na"imanders disorder %annot &'t e(oke the !re'dian dri!e) his form'$ation renders #erfe%t$y the st'%kness, fi"ation, of the dri(e onto a %ertain im#ossi&$e #oint aro'nd whi%h it %ir%'$ates, o&eying a %om#'$sion to re#eat. *t its most e$ementary, dri(e is a re&e$$io's whi$ing whi%h derai$s the nat'ra$ f$ow. So what if there is stricto sensu no wor$d, no dis%$os're of &eing, #rior to this st'%kness2 What if there is no +elassenheit whi%h is dist'r&ed &y the e"%ess of wi$$ing, what if it is this (ery e"%ess7st'%kness whi%h o#ens '# the s#a%e for +elassenheit2 What if it is on$y against the &a%kgro'nd of this st'%kness that a h'man &eing %an e"#erien%e itse$f as finite3morta$, in %ontrast to an anima$ whi%h sim#$y is morta$. The #rimordia$ fa%t is th's not the f'g'e of Being (or the inner #ea%e of +elassenheit), whi%h %an then &e dist'r&ed3#er(erted &y the rise of 'r7wi$$ing1 the #rimordia$ fa%t is this 'r7wi$$ing itse$f, its dist'r&an%e of the nat'ra$ f'g'e. To #'t it in yet another way) in order for a h'man &eing to &e a&$e to withdraw itse$f from the f'$$ immersion into its $ife7en(irons into the inner #ea%e of +elassenheit, this immersion has first to &e &roken thro'gh the e"%essi(e st'%kness of the dri(e. Two f'rther %onseE'en%es sho'$d &e drawn from this. !irst, that h'man finit'de stri%t$y eE'a$s infinity) the o&s%ene immorta$ity3infinity of dri(e whi%h insists &eyond $ife and death. Se%ond) the name of this dia&o$i%a$ e"%ess of wi$$ing whi%h #er(erts the order of Being is s'&9e%t. S'&9e%t th's %annot &e red'%ed to an e#o%h of Being, to the modern s'&9e%ti(ity &ent on te%hno$ogi%a$ domination : there is, 'nder$ying it, a non7 histori%a$ s'&9e%t. Heidegger4s 1di!ine !iolence2 ,f there is a #ro#osition against whi%h o'r entire reading is aimed, it is the notion that /eidegger a&andoned his romanti% infat'ation with str'gg$e, and mythi%a$ #o$iti%a$ deeds and sa%rifi%es in fa(or of a more gent$e and re%e#ti(e form of o#enness to the earth and sky, morta$s and di(inities.G? * s'&tit$e to the #resent %ha#ter %o'$d we$$ ha(e &een) Beware of gent$e o#ennessD What this means with regard to the three #hases of /eideggers tho'ght is that there is a #otentia$ &reakthro'gh towards another dimension in #hase , whi%h gets $ost in #hase ?) where /eidegger erred most (his <a-i engagement), he %ame %$osest to tr'th. !ar from reso$(ing the in%onsisten%ies of #hase , #hase ? #ro#oses a new #aradigm whi%h makes them in(isi&$e. ,n %ontrast to this assertion of the $ate green7 +elassenheit /eidegger, one sho'$d therefore e"#$ore for new o#enings the (ery /eidegger of (io$en%e, #o$iti%a$ deeds and sa%rifi%es. *t the $e(e$ of te"t'a$ ana$ysis, Gregory !riedGC a$ready did a $ot of work in his dee#$y #ertinent reading of /eideggers entire o#'s thro'gh the inter#reti(e $enses of his referen%e to /era%$it's polemos (str'gg$e : in German, :rieg, :ampf, or, #redominant$y in /eidegger, Auseinanderset&ung) from the $atters famo's !ragment F?) War is &oth father of a$$ and king of a$$) it re(ea$s the gods on the one hand and h'mans on the other, makes s$a(es on the one hand, the free on the other.GF *s e(ery inter#reter of /era%$it's knows, this fragment is to &e read as the in(ersion of the re$igio's (ision of the 'ni(erse as generated and r'$ed &y a di(ine #oten%y) for someone $ike /esiod, God (Ve's) the father and king of a$$ isD ,f we re#$a%e Ve's with str'gg$e (war), we get a tota$$y different o(era$$ ma# of the 'ni(erse) not a hierar%hi% Who$e whose $o%a$ tensions and str'gg$es are %ontro$$ed &y the #aterna$ for%e

37

of the o(erwhe$ming di(ine .ne, &'t the ongoing #ro%ess of str'gg$e itse$f as the '$timate rea$ity, as the #ro%ess o't of whi%h a$$ entities as we$$ as their (tem#orary) order emerge. ,t is not on$y that the sta&$e identity of ea%h entity is on$y tem#orary, that they a$$ sooner or $ater disa##ear, disintegrate, ret'rn &a%k to the #rimordia$ %haos1 their (tem#orary) identity itse$f emerges thro'gh str'gg$e, i.e., sta&$e identity is something one sho'$d gain thro'gh the ordea$ of str'gg$e, one asserts in %onfrontation with the other(s)4 so'nds fami$iar2 .ne %an &et it does 7 when /eidegger, in his reading of the fragment, insists on how the str'gg$e meant here is originary str'gg$e, for it a$$ows those who str'gg$e to originate as s'%h in the first #$a%e,GG do we not get here not so m'%h the 's'a$ Heidegger a!ec Hitler, &'t, rather, the 'ne"#e%ted Heidegger a!ec .taline2 !or Sta$in a$so, nat're and history are a &ig ongoing #ro%ess of eterna$ str'gg$e &etween the o##osites) Contrary to meta#hysi%s, dia$e%ti%s ho$ds that interna$ %ontradi%tions are inherent in a$$ things and #henomena of nat're, for they a$$ ha(e their negati(e and #ositi(e sides, a #ast and a f't're, something dying away and something de(e$o#ing1 and that the str'gg$e &etween these o##osites, the str'gg$e &etween the o$d and the new, &etween that whi%h is dying away and that whi%h is &eing &orn, &etween that whi%h is disa##earing and that whi%h is de(e$o#ing, %onstit'tes the interna$ %ontent of the #ro%ess of de(e$o#ment, the interna$ %ontent of the transformation of E'antitati(e %hanges into E'a$itati(e %hanges. The dia$e%ti%a$ method therefore ho$ds that the #ro%ess of de(e$o#ment from the $ower to the higher takes #$a%e not as a harmonio's 'nfo$ding of #henomena, &'t as a dis%$os're of the %ontradi%tions inherent in things and #henomena, as a >str'gg$e of o##osite tenden%ies whi%h o#erate on the &asis of these %ontradi%tions.GI +(en the %$ass str'gg$e is a$ready there in /era%$it's, in the g'ise of the str'gg$e whi%h makes s$a(es on the one hand, the free on the other4 *%%ording to some so'r%es, a (isitor to /eidegger in the $ast years of the Wor$d War ,, was s'r#rised to see on his working ta&$e some &ooks on 6ar"ist #hi$oso#hy1 he re#$ied that, sin%e the So(iet Hnion wi$$ win the war, he is getting ready to #$ay his ro$e in a new so%iety4 a#o%ry#ha$ or not, we %an see the inner $ogi% of this ane%dote, whi%h resides in the 'ne"#e%ted re(er&eration &etween the highest and the $owest, the terse #oeti% &ea'ty and #re%ision of /era%$it's an%ient wisdom, and the sim#$e &r'ta$ity of Sta$ins dia$e%ti%a$7materia$ist wor$d7(iew. The other key Greek #assage on (io$en%e to whi%h /eidegger re#eated$y ret'rns is the famo's Chor's from Antigone on the 'n%anny3demoni% %hara%ter of man. ,n his reading of this Chor's in the Introduction to )etaphysics, /eidegger de#$oys the notion of onto$ogi%a$ (io$en%e that #ertains to e(ery fo'nding gest're of the new %omm'na$ Wor$d of a #eo#$e, a%%om#$ished &y #oets, thinkers and statesmen) Rio$en%e is 's'a$$y seen in terms of the domain in whi%h %on%'rring %om#romise and m't'a$ assistan%e set the standard for Lasein, and a%%ording$y a$$ (io$en%e is ne%essari$y deemed on$y a dist'r&an%e and an offense. 343 The (io$ent one, the %reati(e one who sets forth into the 'nsaid, who &reaks into the 'ntho'ght, who %om#e$s what has ne(er ha##ened and makes a##ear what is 'nseen : this (io$ent one stands at a$$ times in daring. 343 Therefore the (io$en%e7doer knows no kindness and %on%i$iation (in the ordinary sense), no a##easement and mo$$ifi%ation

38

&y s'%%ess or #restige and &y their %onfirmation. 343 !or s'%h a one, disaster is the dee#est and &roadest Kes to the .(erwhe$ming. 343 +ssentia$ de7%ision, when it is %arried o't and when it resists the %onstant$y #ressing ensnarement in the e(eryday and the %'stomary, has to 'se (io$en%e. This a%t of (io$en%e, this de7 %ided setting o't '#on the way to the Being of &eings, mo(es h'manity o't of the hominess of what is most dire%t$y near&y and what is 's'a$.GN *s s'%h, the Creator is hupsipolis apolis (Antigone, $ine ?IO)) he stands o'tside and a&o(e polis and its ethos, he is 'n&o'nd &y any r'$es of mora$ity (whi%h are on$y a degenerati(e form of ethos)1 on$y as s'%h %an he gro'nd a new form of ethos, of %omm'na$ Being in a polis4 7 of %o'rse, what re(er&erates here is the to#i% an i$$ega$ (io$en%e that fo'nds the r'$e of the $aw itse$f, de#$oyed at the same time in different forms &y Wa$ter Ben9amin and Car$ S%hmitt. (,n a standard mo(e, /eidegger, of %o'rse, hastens to add how the first (i%tim of this (io$en%e is the Creator itse$f who has to &e erased with the ad(ent of the new .rder that he gro'nded1 this eras're %an take different forms, from #hysi%a$ destr'%tion : from 6oses and ;'$i's Caesar onwards, we know that the fo'nding fig're has to &e ki$$ed : to re$a#se into madness, as in the %ase of /oe$der$in.) What a%%o'nts for the %hi$$ing %hara%ter of these #assages is that, here, /eidegger does not mere$y #ro(ide a new (ariation on his standard rhetori%a$ fig're of in(ersion (The essen%e of (io$en%e has nothing to do with onti% (io$en%e, s'ffering, war, destr'%tion, et%.1 the essen%e of (io$en%e resides in the (io$ent %hara%ter of the (ery im#osition3fo'nding of the new mode of the +ssen%e : dis%$os're of %omm'na$ Being : itse$f.)1 here, /eidegger (im#$i%it$y, &'t %$ear$y) reads this essentia$ (io$en%e as something that gro'nds : or, at $east, o#ens '# the s#a%e for : the e"#$osions of onti% (io$en%e itse$f4 Bi&era$ %riti%s of /eidegger $ike to dwe$$ on these $ines, em#hasi-ing how, in s's#ending e(en the minima$ mora$ %riteria, /eidegger $egitimi-es the most &r'ta$ onti% (io$en%e of the Statesman7Creator, and th's #a(es the way for his own <a-i engagement and s'##ort for /it$er as s'%h a Statesman7Creator who, standing o'tside and a&o(e the %omm'na$ s#a%e of the mori&'nd Weimar Ae#'&$i%, fear$ess$y shattered its %oordinates and th's (io$ent$y gro'nded a new %omm'na$ Being, that of the Germany reawakened in the <ationa$ist7So%ia$ist re(o$'tion4 /owe(er, what one is tem#ted to add here is that, in the (ery %ase of <a-ism (and !as%ism in genera$), the %onste$$ation of (io$en%e is rather the o##osite one) %ra-y, taste$ess e(en, as it may so'nd, the #ro&$em with /it$er was that he was not !iolent enough, that his (io$en%e was not essentia$ eno'gh. <a-ism was not radi%a$ eno'gh, it did not dare to dist'r& the &asi% str'%t're of the modern %a#ita$ist so%ia$ s#a%e (whi%h is why it had to in(ent and fo%'s on destroying an e"terna$ enemy, ;ews). This is why one sho'$d o##ose the fas%ination with /it$er a%%ording to whi%h /it$er was, of %o'rse, a &ad g'y, res#onsi&$e for the death of mi$$ions : &'t he definite$y had &a$$s, he #'rs'ed with iron wi$$ what he wanted4 This #oint is not on$y ethi%a$$y re#'$si(e, &'t sim#$y wrong) no, /it$er did not ha(e the &a$$s to rea$$y %hange things1 he did not rea$$y a%t, a$$ his a%tions were f'ndamenta$$y reactions, i.e., he a%ted so that nothing wo'$d rea$$y %hange, he stages a &ig s#e%ta%$e of Ae(o$'tion so that the %a#ita$ist order %o'$d s'r(i(e. ,f one rea$$y wants to name an a%t whi%h was tr'$y daring, for whi%h one tr'$y had to ha(e the &a$$s to try the im#ossi&$e, &'t whi%h was sim'$taneo's$y a horri&$e a%t, an a%t %a'sing s'ffering &eyond %om#rehension, it was Sta$ins for%ed %o$$e%ti(i-ation at the end of QP Os in the So(iet Hnion : &'t e(en here, the same re#roa%h ho$ds) the #arado" of the QP N TSta$inist re(o$'tionU was rather that, in a$$ its &r'ta$ radi%a$ity, it was not radical enough in effe%ti(e$y transforming the so%ia$ s'&stan%e. ,ts &r'ta$ destr'%ti(eness has to

39

&e read as an im#otent passage a l?acte. !ar from sim#$y standing for a tota$ for%ing of the 'nnama&$e Aea$ on &eha$f of the Tr'th, the Sta$inist tota$itarianism rather designates the attit'de of a&so$'te$y r'th$ess #ragmatism, of mani#'$ating and sa%rifi%ing a$$ #rin%i#$es on &eha$f of maintaining #ower. !rom this #ers#e%ti(e, the irony of /it$er was that his grand gest'res of des#ising the &o'rgeois se$f7%om#$a%en%y, et%., were '$timate$y in the ser(i%e of ena&$ing this %om#$a%en%y to %ontin'e) far from effe%ti(e$y dist'r&ing the m'%h des#ised de%adent &o'rgeois order, far from awakening the Germans from the immersion into its %om#$a%en%y, <a-ism was a dream whi%h ena&$ed them to go in it and #ost#one awakening 7 Germany rea$$y awakened on$y in the defeat of QPCF. The worry that Badio's notion of %o'rage (whi%h one needs in order to #ra%ti%e the fide$ity to the +(ent) raises in $i&era$ minds is) &'t how are we to disting'ish good (#ro#er$y e(enta$) %o'rage from &ad %o'rage : say, were the <a-is who defended Ber$in in the winter of QPCC7CF or the 6's$im terrorists who e"#$ode themse$(es when they #erform the s'i%ida$ atta%k a$so not tr'$y %o'rageo's2 .ne sho'$d nonethe$ess insist that there is no &ad %o'rage) &ad %o'rage is a$ways a form of %owardi%e. The %o'rage of the <a-is was s'stained &y their %owardi%e to atta%k the key feat're of their so%iety, the %a#ita$ist re$ations of #rod'%tion1 the %o'rage of the terrorists re$ies on the &ig .ther as whose instr'ments they #er%ei(e themse$(es. The tr'e %o'rage of an a%t is a$ways the %o'rage to a%%e#t the ine"isten%e of the &ig .ther, i.e., to atta%k the e"isting order at the #oint of its sym#toma$ knot. *nd, &a%k to /eidegger, what this means is that /it$ers (io$en%e, e(en at its most terrifying (m'rdering mi$$ions of ;ews), was a$$ too onti%, i.e., an im#otent passage a l4acte that &etrayed the ina&i$ity of the <a-i mo(ement to &e rea$$y apolis, to E'estion7 %onfront7shatter the &asi% %oordinates of the &o'rgeois %omm'na$ Being. *nd what if /eideggers own <a-i7engagement is a$so to &e read as a passage a l4acte) a (io$ent o't&'rst that &ears witness to /eideggers ina&i$ity to reso$(e the theoreti%a$ dead$o%k he fo'nd himse$f in2 The E'estion of how does /eideggers <a-i engagement re$ate to his #hi$oso#hy sho'$d th's &e re%ast) it is no $onger a E'estion of ade,uatio (%orres#onden%e) &etween /eideggers tho'ght and his #o$iti%a$ a%ts, &'t of an inherent theoreti%a$ dead$o%k (whi%h, in itse$f, has nothing to do with <a-ism), and the (io$ent passage as the on$y way to es%a#e it. This is how one sho'$d a$so re%ast the o$d di$emma) was at the &eginning the Word or the *%t2 Bogi%a$$y, it a$$ &egan with the Word1 the a%t that fo$$owed was an im#otent o't&'rst that &ore witness to the dead$o%k of the Word. *nd the same goes for the a%t #ar e"%e$$en%e, the di(ine a%t of %reation) it a$so signa$s the im#asse of Gods ratio%inations. ,n short, here, a$so, the negati(e as#e%t of the onto$ogi%a$ #roof ho$ds) the fa%t that God %reated the wor$d does not dis#$ay his omni#oten%e and e"%ess of goodness, &'t his de&i$itating $imitation.

40

*$&eit in the wrong dire%tion. *(ai$a&$e on$ine at &ooks.eser(er.org3fi%tion3inno%en%e3&rokensword.htm$. 3 /ege$5s 8henomeno$ogy of S#irit, Trans$ated &y *. R. 6i$$er, ."ford) ."ford Hni(ersity 8ress QPII, #. COC. 4 8eter S$oterdi9k, =orn und =eit, !rankf'rt) S'hrkam# OOG, #. GO. 5 G.K.Chesterton, The )an 6ho 6as Thursday, /armondsworth) 8eng'in Books QPNG, #. CC7CF. 6 The same insight was a$ready form'$ated &y /einri%h /eine in his History of /eligion and -hilosophy in +ermany from QN?C, a$tho'gh as a #ositi(e, admira&$e fa%t) 6ark yo' this, yo' #ro'd men of a%tion, yo' are nothing &'t the 'n%ons%io's hen%hmen of inte$$e%t'a$s, who, often in the h'm&$est se%$'sion, ha(e meti%'$o's$y #$otted yo'r e(ery deed.(W'oted from Lan /ind, The Threat to /eason, Bondon) Rerso Books OOI, #. Q) 7 Terry +ag$eton, Holy Terror, ."ford) ."ford Hni(ersity 8ress OOF, #. FO7FQ. 8 ;a%E'es7*$ain 6i$$er, 8e %e!eau de 8acan, Rerdier OO?, #. QCG7QCI. 9 ,n this s'&di(ision, n'm&ers in &ra%kets refer to the #ages in Wendy Brown, -olitics 0ut of History, 8rin%eton) 8rin%eton Hni(ersity 8ress OOQ. 10 <iet-s%he is as a r'$e strange$y de%onte"t'a$i-ed3dehistori%i-ed, &y the same a'thors who are otherwise so eager to %onte"t'a$i-e3histori%i-e Ba%an and others to demonstrate their meta#hysi%a$ and re#ressi(e &ias) in Le$e'-es #aradigmati% reading of <iet-s%he, this dimension tota$$y disa##ears. (Whi$e, ty#i%a$$y, often the same a'thors go into great detai$s a&o't Wagners : <iet-s%hes great o#onents : anti7Semitism, $o%ating it into its histori%a$ %onte"t4) 11 This #ara$$e$, of %o'rse, has its $imits, the most o&(io's &eing that !o'%a'$ts ,ran engagement was #er%ei(ed as a $one idiosyn%rati% gest're, o't of syn% with the hegemoni% $i&era$7demo%rati% %onsens's, whi$e /eideggers <a-i engagement fo$$owed the dominant trend among German radi%a$7%onser(ati(e inte$$e%t'a$s. 12 ;anet *fary and Ke(in B. *nderson, Foucault and the Iranian /e!olution, Chi%ago)The Hni(ersity of Chi%ago 8ress OOF, #. ?7C. 13 *fary and *nderson, o#.%it., #. G?. 14 Gi$$es Le$e'-e, %egotiations, <ew Kork) Co$'m&ia Hni(ersity 8ress QPPF, o#.%it., #. QIQ. 15 *fary and *nderson, o#.%it., #. GF. 16 ,s, howe(er, this magi% moment of enth'siasti% 'nity of a %o$$e%ti(e wi$$ not an e"em#$ary %ase of what Ba%an refers to as imaginary identifi%ation2 ,t is here, a#ro#os this %ase, that one %an o&ser(e at its #'rest the shift in Ba%ans tea%hing) whi$e Ba%an of the QPFOs wo'$d 'ndo'&ted$y dismiss this enth'siasti% 'nity as the imaginary misre%ognition of sym&o$i% o(erdetermination, the $ate Ba%an wo'$d dis%ern in it the er'#tion of the Aea$. 17 *fary and *nderson, o#.%it., #. FG. 18 .#.%it., #. F?. 19 .#.%it., #. GC. 20 .#.%it., #. GF. 21 .#.%it., #. GO. 22 !ethi Bens$ama, 8a psychanalyse a l4epreu!e de l4Islam, 8aris) *'&ier OO , #. ? O. 23 Bens$ama, o#.%it., i&id. 24 +rnst <o$te, )artin Heidegger ' -olitik und +eschichte im 8e en und $enken, Ber$in) 8ro#y$aen Rer$ag QPP , #. PG. ,n%identa$$y, the same $ine of defense of /eideggers <a-i engagement was a$ready #ro#osed &y ;ean Bea'fret in a $etter #'&$ished in QPG? (see +mman'e$ !aye, Heidegger3 84introduction du na&isme dans la philosophie, 8aris) *$&in 6i%he$ OOF, #. FO 1 a$$ n'm&ers in &ra%kets that fo$$ow refer to the #ages of this &ook). 25 6ark Wratha$$s How to /ead Heidegger, Bondon, Granta Books OOF, #. NI. 26 Wratha$$, o#.%it., #. NG. 27 Ste(e !'$$er, :uhn !s3 -opper, Cam&ridge) ,%on Books OOG, #. QPQ. 28 6i%he$ de Beisteg'i, The %ew Heidegger" Bondon) Contin''m OOF, #. I. 29 Le Beisteg'i, o#.%it., #. QIF7G. 30 /annah *rendt, The 0rigins of Totalitarianism, <ew Kork) /ar%o'rt Bra%e ;o(ano(i%h QPI?, #. ? N. 31 /annah *rendt, 0n /e!olution, Bondon) 8eng'in Books QPPO, #. OF. 32 Ao&ert 8i##in, The -ersistence of .u jecti!ity, Cam&ridge (6a)) Cam&ridge Hni(ersity 8ress OOF, o#.%it., #. QGF. 33 8i##in, o#.%it., #. . 34 Le Beisteg'i, o#.%it., #. QN .
1 2

Le Beisteg'i, o#.%it., #. QN . Wratha$$, o#.%it., #. N . 37 Wratha$$, o#.%it., #. IP7NO. 38 Wratha$$, o#.%it., #. NQ7N . 39 *$$ referen%es to and #assages from these two seminars are taken from +mman'e$ !aye, o#.%it. 40 6artin /eidegger, Introduction to )etaphysics, <ew /a(en) Ka$e Hni(ersity 8ress OOO, #. I. 41 ;ean7!ran%ois Ker(egan, Ba (ie ethiE'e #erd'e dans ses e"tremes4. ,n 8ectures de Hegel, so's $a dire%tion de .$i(ier Tin$and, 8aris) Bi(re de 8o%he OOF, #. N?. 42 Ker(egan, o#.%it., #. PQ. 43 The #ro&$em is here, of %o'rse) does the market dynami% rea$$y #ro(ide what it #romises2 Loes it not generate #ermanent desta&i$i-ation of the so%ia$ &ody, es#e%ia$$y &y way of in%reasing %$ass distin%tions and gi(ing rise to mo& de#ra(ed of &asi% %onditions of $ife2 /ege$s so$'tion was here (ery #ragmati% : he o#ted for se%ondary #a$$iati(e meas'res $ike %o$onia$ e"#ansion and, es#e%ia$$y, the mediating ro$e of estates (.tande). *nd /ege$s di$emma is sti$$ o'rs today, two h'ndred years $ater. The %$earest indi%ation of this /ege$s histori%a$ $imit is his do'&$e 'se of the same term .itten (%'stoms, so%ia$ ethi%a$ order)) it stands for the immediate organi% 'nity that has to &e $eft &ehind (the *n%ient Greek idea$), and for the higher organi% 'nity whi%h sho'$d &e ena%ted in a modern state. 44 G.W.!. /ege$, *lements of the -hilosophy of /ight, Cam&ridge) Cam&ridge Hni(ersity 8ress QPPQ, 8ar. IP. 45 /ege$, o#.%it., i&id. 46 /ege$, o#.%it., 8ar. NO. 47 .#.%it., i&id. 48 Lid the 6ar"ists who mo%ked /ege$ here not #aid the #ri%e for this neg$igen%e in the g'ise of the Beader who, again, not on$y dire%t$y em&odied the rationa$ tota$ity, &'t em&odied it f'$$y, as a fig're of f'$$ Know$edge, not on$y as the idioti% #oint of dotting the is. ,n other words, a Sta$inist Beader is not a monar%h, whi%h makes him m'%h worse4 49 /ege$, o#.%it., 8ar. NO, *ddition. 50 6artin /eidegger, Introduction to )etaphysics, QO . 51 6artin /eidegger, +esamtausga e" Band @A7 %iet&sche7 $er 6ille &ur )acht als :unst, !rankf'rt) K$ostermann QPNF, #. $P?. 52 *(ai$a&$e on$ine at www.s$ate.%om3id3 QOIQOO. 53 6artin /eidegger, +esamtausga e" Band @B7 +rundpro leme der -hilosophie, !rankf'rt. K$ostermann QPNC, #. CQ. 54 *'thenti% fide$ity is the fide$ity to the (oid itse$f 7 to the (ery a%t of $oss, of a&andoning3erasing the o&9e%t. Why sho'$d the dead &e the o&9e%t of atta%hment in the first #$a%e2 The name for this fide$ity is death dri(e. ,n the terms of dea$ing with the dead, one sho'$d, #erha#s, 7 against the work of mo'rning as we$$ as against the me$an%ho$i% atta%hment to the dead who ret'rn as ghosts 7 assert the Christian motto 0$et the dead &'ry their dead.0 The o&(io's re#roa%h to this motto is) what are we to do when, #re%ise$y, the dead do not a%%e#t to stay dead, &'t %ontin'e to $i(e in 's, ha'nting 's &y their s#e%tra$ #resen%e2 /ere, one is tem#ted to %$aim that the most radi%a$ dimension of the !re'dian death dri(e #ro(ides the key to how are we to read the Christian 0$et the dead &'ry their dead0) what death dri(e tries to o&$iterate is not the &io$ogi%a$ $ife, &'t the (ery after$ife 7 it endea(ors to ki$$ the $ost o&9e%t the se%ond time, not in the sense of mo'rning (a%%e#ting the $oss thro'gh sym&o$i-ation), &'t in a more radi%a$ sense of o&$iterating the (ery sym&o$i% te"t're, the $etter in whi%h the s#irit of the dead s'r(i(es. 55 G.K.Chesterton, 0rthodoxy, San !ran%is%o) ,gnati's 8ress QPPF, #. QG. 56 So what a&o't /eideggers insisten%e on his ethni% roots2 *$tho'gh he a$ways em#hasi-ed his Germanness as we$$ as the 'niE'e ro$e of the German $ang'age, he in a way had to &etray his roots) his entire tho'ght is marked &y the tension &etween the Greek and the German. The German roots had to &e referred to the Greek roots1 the two %annot &e sim#$y 'nited into a $inear story of the de(e$o#ment of Western meta#hysi%s. German roots ha(e their own %ontent, irred'%i&$e to Greek roots (see, for e"am#$e, in #nterwegs &ur .prache, his ana$ysis of +eist (s#irit) as a f$ame that ignites itse$f, #a(ing the way for the German ,dea$ist notion of the se$f7#ositing s'&9e%ti(ity : /eidegger #oints o't that we do not find this notion of S#irit in Greek)1 and the Greek nonethe$ess remains a foreign $ang'age to &e de%i#hered.
35 36

See ;a%E'es Lerrida, 0f .pirit7 Heidegger and the Cuestion, Chi%ago) The Hni(ersity of Chi%ago 8ress QPPQ. 58 See Bret W. La(is, Heidegger and the 6ill, +(anston) <orthwestern Hni(ersity 8ress OOI. (*$$ n'm&ers in &ra%kets in this s'&di(ision refer to the #ages of La(iss &ook.) 59 See Cha#ter Q of S$a(o9 Vi-ek, The Ticklish .u ject, Bondon) Rerso Books QPPP. 60 ,n order to a(oid the im#ression that we neg$e%t the way the notion of the Wi$$ s'stains not on$y the te%hno$ogi%a$ thr'st to %ontro$ and domination, &'t a$so the mi$itaristi% s#irit of str'gg$e and sa%rifi%e, $et 's re%a$$ how +elassenheit in no way #rote%ts 's from the most de(astating te%hno$ogi%a$ and mi$itary engagement : the fate of Ven B'ddhism in ;a#an is more than indi%ati(e here. 61 6artin /eidegger, +esamtausga e" Band B7 Hol&wege, !rankf'rt) K$ostermann QPII, #. ?FF. 62 /annah *rendt, The 8ife of the )ind, San Liego) /ar%o'rt Bra%e QPIN, #. QPC. 63 Wratha$$, o#.%it., #. NI. 64 See Gregory !ried, Heidegger4s -olemos7 From Being to -olitics, <ew /a(en) Ka$e Hni(ersity 8ress OOO. 65 ,n%identa$$y, the (ery &eginning of the fragment, in Greek, with the (er& at the end (as Greeks do it), strange$y re%a$$s what e(ery $o(er of #o#'$ar %'$t're today knows as the way Koda, this /era%$itean gnome, ta$ks in .tar 6ars, #rono'n%ing #rofo'nd senten%es with the (er& at the end : so the &eginning (polemos panton men pater esti) sho'$d &e trans$ated in yodaese War father of a$$ is4. 66 6artin /eidegger, Introduction to )etaphysics, #. CI. 67 ;ose#h Sta$in, Lia$e%ti%a$ and /istori%a$ 6ateria$ism (Se#tem&er QP?N), a(ai$a&$e on$ine at htt#)33www.mar"ists.org3referen%e3ar%hi(e3sta$in3works3QP?N3OP.htm. 68 6artin /eidegger, Introduction to )etaphysics, #. QQF7Q N.
57