Jacques Derrida - Lyotard and Us.pdf

(210 KB) Pobierz
BBZ;01OCT00
parallax ,2000,vol.6,no.4,28–48
Lyotardand us 1
JacquesDerrida
When,surviving,andhenceforthdeprivedofthepossibilityofspeaking to thefriend,
himself,oneiscondemnedtomerelyspeaking about him,aboutwhathewas,thought,
wrote,still,itisabout him thatoneshouldspeak.
Itisof him wemeantospeak,solelyofhim,onhissideonly.Buthowcanthe
survivorspeakinfriendshipaboutthefriend,withouta‘we’slippinginindecently,
incessantly?withouta‘we’evendemanding,inthenameoffriendship,tobeheard,
precisely?Fortosilenceortoforbidthe‘we’wouldbetoenactanother,noless
serious,violence.Theinjusticewouldbeatleastasgreatasthatofstillsaying‘we’.
Whocaneverdarea‘we’withouttrembling?Whocaneversigna‘we’–inEnglish,
a‘wesubject’inthenominative,oran‘us’,intheaccusativeorthedative?InFrench,
theyarethesame‘nous’,evenwhenthesecondistheobjectofthe Ž rst:‘nousnous’
–yes,oui,nousnoussommesrencontre´s,nousnoussommesparle´,e´crit,nousnous
sommesentendus,nousnoussommesaccorde´s–ounon.Wemet(eachother),we
spoke,wrote(toone-another),weloved(oneanother),weagreed(witheachother)
–ornot.Tosigna‘we’,an‘us’mayalreadyseemimpossible,fartooweightyor
light,alwaysillegitimateamongsttheliving.Andhowmuchmoresointhecaseof
asurvivorspeakingaboutafriend?Unlesssomeexperienceof‘surviving’gives us ,
beyondlifeanddeath,whatitonlycangive,givetothe‘we’,yes,namelyits Ž rst
vocation,itssense,oritsorigin.Itsthoughtperhaps,thinkingitself.
When,atthelastminutestill,Iwasaskedaboutatitleforthispaper,Iwasroaming
aroundtheFrenchandEnglishwords‘we’,‘nous’,‘oui,nous’,‘yes,we’,butsomebody
inmecouldnot,norprobablywantedto,stopthemovement.Ifounditimpossible
toupholdthe Ž rmauthority � auntedbyanytitle,eventhoseasshortastwowords,
forexample‘yes,we’.Ishallnotproposeanytitlehere.Ihavenone.Butyouknow
verywellthatthe‘nous’,the‘we’wasoneofthemostseriousstakesinJean-Franc ¸ ois
Lyotard’sthought,particularlyin TheDi Ú erend .Letusdoasifforusthetitlehadto
bemissing,evenif‘Lyotardand us ’,forinstance,doesnotsuggestthemostunjust
sentence–asentencetorisk,face,orfoil.
*
parallax
parallax ISSN1353-4645print / ISSN1460-700Xonline Ñ 2000Taylor&FrancisLtd
http: // www.tandf.co.uk / journals
28
‘Thereshallbenomourning’,Jean-Franc¸oisLyotardoncewrote,‘Iln’yaurapas
dedeuil’.
Thiswasabouttenyearsago.
Iwouldneverdaretosay,despitethefewcluestobegiveninamoment,thathe
wrotethissentenceforme.Butitiscertainthatheaddressedittous.
Thatday,inthesingularplaceinwhichhepublishedthissentence,hewaspretending
withoutpretending.Thisplacewasaphilosophyjournal.Perhapswashethen
pretendingtopretend.Hewasbothpretendingtobeaddressingmeandpretending
tobeaddressinganother,someother,maybeanyother.Perhapsyou,perhapsus.
Nobodywilleverbeabletoascertainitbeyondadoubt.Itwas asif ,inaddressing
me,headdressedsomeoneelse,orasif,addressinganybody,healsosharedwith
methat‘thereshallbenomourning’.
Hewrotethenwhathadtobewritten,andhowithadtobewritten,sothatthe
identityofthedestinationremainedelusive,sothattheaddresstoanyparticular
placecouldneverbe proven ,whatisconsideredproven,notevenbytheonewho
signedit,norcoulditeverbepubliclydeclared,ormanifestenoughonitsown,or
ascertainedconclusivelythroughtheprocessofadeterminingtheoreticaljudgment.
Indoingso,heaskedpublicly,infulllight,andpractically,butwithreferenceto
mourning,thequestionoftheEnlightenmentorthequestionaboutthe
Enlightenment,namely–inthatKantianspacehehasplowed,furrowed,sowed
again–thequestionofrationallanguageandofitsdestinationinthepublicspace.
‘Thereshallbenomourning’,itwasthuslikeadriftingaphorism,asentence
delivered,abandoned,bodyandsoulexposedtoanabsolutedispersal.Ifthetense
oftheverbin‘thereshallbenomourning’isclearlyfuture,nothinginwhatcomes
beforeorafterthesentenceallowsonetodecidewhetherthegrammarofthisfuture
isthatofadescriptionorofaprescription.Nothingallowsonetodecidebetween,
ontheonehand,theprediction:‘itwillbethus’(therewillbenomourning,no
mourningwilltakeplace,aboveall,itshan’tbeprojected,therewillbenosignor
workofmourning),and,ontheotherhand,thecommandortheprohibitionofan
implicitimperative,theprescription:‘itmustbethus’,‘thereshould,theremustbe
nomourning’(nosignorworkofconcertedmourning,ofinstitutedcommemoration),
oreventhenormativewish:‘itwouldbebetteriftherewerenomourning’.Wouldn’t
theinstitutionofmourningruntheriskofsealingtheforgetting?Ofprotecting
againstmemoryinsteadofpreservingit?
Thesehypotheseswillforeverremainopen:isitapredictionoraprescription,an
order,aprohibition,orawish?Whatismore,each‘asif’inthesehypothesesare
furtherhangingontheturnofanegation.Onemust Ž rsthavepassedthrough
mourning,throughthemeaningoftheword‘mourning’,intheenduringofmourning
thatisappropriatetoitssense,accordingtotheveryvisionofwhatitwillormust
be,onemust Ž rstcrossthisthresholdandunderstandthemeaningofwhatagenuine
mourningwouldorshouldbe,whatmeaningitmayhave,inorderto,afterwards
orthereupon,butinasecondmoment,beabletogivetomourningorthemeaning
parallax
29
ofmourninganegativesense,togiveita‘no’.Mourning,thereshallnotbe.There
shallbe noneofthe mourning,astheFrenchsyntaxstates,‘il n’ yaura pasde deuil’,
wherethephrase‘noneofthe’,openingontothethresholdofdeathandmourning,
troublesanewthemeaningofthisextraordinarysentence:ofthemourning,there
shallbenone,noneatall,neitheralittlenormuch,neitherinpartnorinwhole,
howeverlittle,butalso,sinceofmourningthereshallbenone,thereshan’tbe the
mourningitself.Period.
Butisthereevermourning,anymourning?Doesamourningexist?Isiteverpresent?
Theveryauthorityoftheassertion,‘thereshallbenomourning’,caneven,inits
decontextualizedloneliness,leadonetothinkthatJean-Franc¸oisalsomeanttoexpose
ittoananalyticalquestion.Whatintheendissaid,whatismeanttobesaid,in
thusasserting,inasuspendedsentence,‘thereshallbenomourning’?
Theimpossibilityofassigninganyonesingleaddresseetothissentence,isatthe
sametimetheprobablycalculatedimpossibilitytodetermineitscontext,including
thesenseorthereferentofthestatement–which,infact, earlier thanadiscourse,
before beingstated,formsandleavesatrace.Noborderisgiven,noshoretoland,
togroundthissentence.LaterIwillsaywhatwasthecontext,or,atleasttheapparent
ormanifestcontextofthisreservedbutpublicandpublisheddeclaration.Yet,even
asIgivefurthersurfaceinformationaboutthesubject,thiscontextwillbynomeans
become Ž lledout,orevenabletobe Ž lledout,throughandthroughsecuredat
itsborders.
Letusdreamthen:‘Thereshallbenomourning’couldhavebeenanApocalyptic
repetition,thehiddenorplayfulcitationofSaintJohn’sApocalypse;‘ ultranonerit
[...] luctus/oukestaieti [...] penthos ’:‘Godshallwipealltearsfromtheireyes.Death
shallbenomore.Neithermourning,norcriesorpainshallbe,forthe Ž rstuniverse
(the Ž rstthingsoftheworld)hasvanished( quiaprimaabierunt/otitaprotaapelthan )’.
ThisechooftheApocalypse( ultranoneritluctus [...]/ oukestaietipenthos [...])isin Ž nitely
farfromexhaustingJ.F.’swords,butthisechocannotnotaccompany,likea
forerunningdouble,likeanelusivememory,this‘thereshallbenomourning’.One
couldsaythisspectralechoroamsaroundlikearobberoftheApocalypse,itconspires
inthewindofthissentence,itcomesbacktohauntourreading,itfore-breatheslike
theauraofthis‘thereshallbenomourning’,whichneverthelessJ.F.willhavesigned.
J.F.alone.
Earlier,Imentionedtheunsecurablehypothesisthatthis‘thereshallbenomourning’
maynotbeaconstativebutanormativeorprescriptivesentence.Yetnormativeand
prescriptivearenotthesamething. TheDi Ú erend o Ú ersusthemeanstodistinguish
them. 2 Speakingaboutthe‘Us’afterAuschwitz,J.F.L.insistsoncemoreonthe
heterogeneityofsentences,moreparticularlyhere,onthesubtledi Ú erencebetween
anormativesentenceandaprescriptiveone.Whereasthenormativesentence
‘resemblesaperformativeone’andinitself,byitself,initsimmanence,‘e Ú ectsthe
legitimationoftheobligationasitformulatesit’,theprescriptivesentencerequires
anothersentence,onemore:andthisfurthersentenceislefttotheaddressee,the
readerinthiscase;itislefttohimorher,thustous,tofollowup,evenifitis,asit
issaidelsewhere,witha‘lastsentence’.J.F.L.continues:‘Thisiswhyitiscommonly
Derrida
30
saidthatanobligationrequiresthefreedomoftheoneitappliesto’.Andheadds
–Ipicturehimwithamalicioussmileashewritesthisremarkaboutthefreedom
oftheobligee,playingwithquotationmarks–‘Thisisa‘‘grammaticalremark’’
[noticethequotationmarks],itconcernsthefollow-upsentencerequiredbyan
ethicalsentence’.Iftheethicalsentence‘thereshallbenomourning’istakenasan
obligation,itthusimplies,inaquasi-grammaticalway,thatanothersentencecoming
fromsomeaddresseemustrespondtoit.Asentencewhichitalreadyfore-called.
Iwouldhavefollowedthislastrecommendation,letmyselfbeledbysuchan
‘obligation’,hadthesentence‘thereshallbenomourning’beendeterminableasa
constative,normative or prescriptivesentence,orifitsaddresseewereidenti Ž able,
eitherinternallyorexternally.Yet,notonlyisthisnotthecase,butthissentence,
unlikeanyotherexampleofnormativeorprescriptivesentencesgivenbyJ.F.L.,
containsnopersonalpronoun.‘Thereshallbenomourning’isanimpersonal
sentence,withoutasingularIorasingularyou[ tu ],withoutapluralweoraplural
you[ vous ],withoutaheorasheorathey.Thisgrammarsetsitapartfromallthe
otherexamplesgivenin TheDi Ú erend concerningtheanalysistowhichIhavejust
referred.
Thissentencewithoutatrulypersonalpronoun,Ithuscouldn’thaveknownhowto
takeitwhen,abouttenyearsago,inanissueof LaRevuePhilosophique ,J.F.L.pretended
tobeaddressingmebypretendingnottoaddressme–oranybodyornobody.As
ifmourninghadtotakeplace,inadvance,withrespecttotheaddresseeofthe
sentencestating‘thereshallbenomourning’.Thereadermustmournthedesireto
knowtowhomthissentenceisdestined,addressed,andaboveall,withrespectto
thepossibilityofbeing,heorshe,orus,itsaddressee.Readabilitybearsthis
mourning:asentencemustbereadable,itmustbeabletobecomereadable,upto
apoint,withoutthereader–heorshe,oranyotherplaceofreading–beingable
tosecureitsultimateinstanceofdestination.Nodoubt,thismourningcarriesthe
Ž rstandterribleconditionofanyandallreading.
Today,Idonotknowanybetter,Istilldonotknowhowtoreadasentencewhich
Icannotleaveasideeither.Icannotstoplookingatit.Itholdsme,itwon’tletme
go,evenasitdoesn’tneedmeasaddresseeorinheritor,preciselyasitismeantto
doorgowithoutmefasterthanitgoesthroughme.Iwillthuscirclearound,return
tothese Ž vewords[seveninFrench]whosetwirlswon’tbechainedup,whosechain
won’tbelockedorlodgedintoanyconstrainingenoughcontext,asifitforeverrisked
–ariskcalculatedbyJ.F.L.-beingdestinedtodispersal,dissipation,oreventoan
undecidabilitysuchthatthemourningitspeaksaboutimmediatelyturnstothemute
mumblingofthose Ž vewords.Thissentencetakesitselfbeyonditself,itholdsback
orwithdraws,onecanneitherunderstanditnorleaveitunheeded,neitherdecipher
itnormisunderstanditaltogether,neitherkeepitnorloseit,neitherinsidenor
outside.Itisthissentenceitself,thephrasingofthisunclassi Ž ablephrase,drifting
farfromthecategoriesanalyzedbyitsauthor,whichonefeelstobemourning,
preciselyasittellsus,phrasingit:ofme,thereshallbenomourning.Ofme,itsays,
ofme,thephrasingofthesentencesays,youwillnotbedonemourning.Youshan’t,
byanymeans,organizethemourning,nor,worseyet,theworkofmourning.And
parallax
31
ofcourse‘nomourning’,lefttoitself,canmeantheendlessimpossibilityofmourning,
theinconsolable,theunrepairablewhichnoworkofmourningwillevermend.
Butthe‘nomourning’canalso,inthesameway,opposetestimony,testifying,
protestationorcontestation,totheveryideaofatestament,tothehypothesisof
mourning,which,unfortunately,asweknow,alwayshasanegativeside,onethatis
atthesametimelaborious,guilt-riddenandnarcissistic,reactive,turnedtoward
melancholia,ifnotenvy.Andwhenitturnsintocelebration,orwake,therisk
ishighest.
DespiteallIhavejustsaid,andstillstandbehind,abouttheabsenceofade Ž nite
addresseeforasentencethatwasaboveallnotaddressedtome,inacontextin
whichitmayneverthelesshaveseemedtobe,Icouldn’tstayclearofatemptation.
ThetemptationtoimagineJ.F.L.,onedayin1990,bettingthatthesentence‘there
shallbenomourning’whichhewroteashereadit,whichIthenreadinaparticular
modein1990,thatthissentence,someday,induetime,oneofthetwoofus(but
whichone?)wouldre-readit,inthesamewayanddi Ú erently,privatelyandinpublic.
Forthissentencewaspublished.Itremainspublicevenifitisnotcertainthatits
publiccharacterexhaustsitandthatitdoesn’thideacryptforeverburiedwithin.
Asif,published,itstillremainedabsolutelysecret,privateorclandestine–three
modes(secret,private,clandestine)thathavetobecarefullydistinguished.Idon’t
meanthatthissentenceistestamental.Itakeallsentencestohaveavirtually
testamentalcharacter,butIwouldn’trushtogivethisone,becauseitsayssomething
aboutthedeathoftheauthor,anyspeci Ž cityasalastwill,theinstructionsofa
mortal,evenlessofsomebodydying.Rather,ittellsussomethingaboutthe
testamental–perhapsthatwhatthemostfaithfulinheritancedemandsistheabsence
oftestament.Inthisrespect,itagainsays,itdictatesanother‘thereshallbeno
mourning’.Thedutytowardthebelovedorthefriendwouldbetoneithergointo,
norbedone,mourninghimorher.
Iwillnow,buttemporarily,leaveasidethispuzzlingsentence.Itwillthuskeepits
reserve.Ileaveitbehindforawhile,withtheoddfeelingthatitwas,oneday,
entrustedtome,intensely,directly,immediatelyaddressedtome,yetleavingme
withnorightonit,especiallynottherightoftheaddressee.Hewhosigneditisstill
lookingatmewithanattentionatoncewatchfulanddistracted.
*
ReadingJean-Franc ¸ oisLyotard,re-readinghimintenselytoday,IbelieveIcan
discernaquestionthatkeepsastrange,uncannyspellforhim,apowerwhichsome
mightrushtocallorganizing,aforceIalsobelievetoberadicallydisruptive.IfI
weretocallitsubversive,itwouldnotbetooveruseaneasyword,buttodescribe
inits tropic literality(tropic,meaningwhirling,likethetwirlofaturningoratorment)
amovementthatrevolves,evolves,revolutionizes,overturns–asanysubversion
should.Thee Ú ectofthisquestionisn’tonethatradiatesin Ž nitelyfromathinking
center,rather,ifoneinsistsonkeepingtoacentre,itwouldhavetobethatofa
whirlwind,ofachasmopenlikeamuteeyeorglance, mute asJ.F.likedtosayabout
Derrida
32

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin