Hegel, Death and Sacrifice Author(s): Georges Bataille and Jonathan Strauss Source: Yale French Studies, No. 78, On Bataille (1990), pp. 9-28 Published by: Yale University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930112 Accessed: 27/10/2010 23:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
GEORGES
BATAILLE
Hegel, Death and Sacrifice' The animaldies.Butthedeathoftheanimalis thebecomingof consciousness.
I. DEATH
Man's Negativity In the Lecturesof 1805-1806, at the momentofhis thought'sfull maturity, duringthe periodwhenhe was writingThe PhenomenologyofSpirit,Hegel expressedin thesetermsthe black characterof humanity: "Man is thatnight,thatemptyNothingness, whichcontainsevin itsundividedsimplicity:thewealthofan infinite erything number ofrepresentations, of images,not one ofwhichcomes preciselyto are not [there]insofaras theyare really mind,or which [moreover], It is the present. night,theinteriority-or-theintimacyofNature whichexistshere:[the]purepersonal-Ego. In phantasmagorical repit is nighton all sides:heresuddenlysurgesup a bloodresentations spatteredhead; there,another,white,apparition;and theydisappear just as abruptly. That is the nightthatone perceivesifone looks a man in the eyes: then one is delvinginto a nightwhich becomes terrible;it is thenightoftheworldwhichthenpresentsitselftous."2 1. Excerptfroma studyon the-fundamentally Hegelian-thoughtofAlexander Kojeve.Thisthoughtseeks,so faras possible,tobe Hegel'sthought, sucha contempoforexample,theeventsthat raryspirit,knowingwhatHegeldidnotknow(knowing, haveoccurredsince 1917and,as well,thephilosophy ofHeidegger), couldgraspit and and courage,it mustbe said, is to have developit. AlexanderKojeve'soriginality the necessity,consequently, perceivedthe impossibilityof going any further, ofrenouncing the creationofan originalphilosophyand,thereby, theinterminable whichis theavowalofthevanityofthought.This essaywas firstpubstarting-over lishedin Deucalion 5 (1955).WithpermissionofEditionsGallimard? 1988. 2. G. W. F. Hegel, Jenenser Philosophiedes Geistesin SamtlicheWerke,ed. Hoffmeister, (Leipzig:FelixMeiner,1931),vol.20 180-81.CitedbyKojevein Johannes YFS 78, On Bataille,ed. Allan Stoekl,C) 1990byYale University.
9
10
Yale FrenchStudies
finds Ofcourse,this"beautifultext,"whereHegel'sRomanticism it loosely.IfHegelwas a romantic, is nottobe understood expression, was perhapsin a fundamentalmanner(hewas at anyratea romantic at thebeginning-inhisyouth-, whenhe was a commonplacerevothemethodbywhicha buthe didnotsee in Romanticism lutionary), the real worldto proudspiritdeems itselfcapable ofsubordinating ofitsowndreams.AlexanderKojeve,in citingthem, thearbitrariness says of these lines thattheyexpress"the centraland finalidea of andthe whichis "theidea thatthefoundation Hegelianphilosophy," and empiricalexissourceofhumanobjectivereality(Wirklichkeit) whichmanifests itselfas negative tence(Dasein) aretheNothingness or creativeAction,freeand self-conscious." world,I havefeltobliged To permitaccessto Hegel'sdisconcerting to mark,bya carefulexamination,bothits violentcontrastsand its ultimateunity. For Kojeve, "the 'dialectical' or anthropologicalphilosophyof Hegel is in thefinalanalysisa philosophyofdeath (or,whichis the same thing,ofatheism)"(K, 537; TEL, 539). Butifmanis "deathlivinga humanlife"(K,548; TEL, 550),man's givenin deathby virtueof the factthatman's deathis negativity, fromrisksassumedwithoutnecessi(resulting essentiallyvoluntary theprincipleofaction. is without biological ty, reasons), nevertheless and NegativityAction.On Indeed,forHegel,Actionis Negativity, intoit, theone hand,theman who negatesNature-by introducing like a flip-side,the anomalyof a "pure,personalego"-is present withinthatNature'sheartlike a nightwithinlight,like an intimacy ofthosethingswhicharein themselves-like withintheexteriority a phantasmagoriain which nothingtakes shape but to evanesce, nothingappearsbut to disappear,wherenothingexistsexceptabsorbedwithoutrespitein the annihilationof time,fromwhich it aspect: drawsthe beautyofa dream.But thereis a complementary thisnegationofNatureis notmerelygivenin consciousness-where that which existsin itselfappears(but only to disappear)-; this and in beingexteriorized, really(in itself) negationis exteriorized, Man and works fights;he transforms changestherealityofNature. it he createsa Nature and in destroying the given;he transforms totheReadingofHegel,(Paris:Gallimard,1947),573.(TELedition[Paris: Introduction citedin thetext,as K; TEL). Gallimard,19801,575.) Henceforth
GEORGES BATAILLE
11
the world,a worldwhichwas not. On the one handthereis poetry, and diluted a itself, blood-spattered destructionthathas surgedup head; on the otherhand thereis Action,work,struggle.On the one fromNothingness hand, "pure Nothingness,"whereman "differs onlyfora certaintime"(K,573; TEL, 575).On theother,a historical thatNothingnessthatgnawshim World,whereman's Negativity, fromwithin,createsthewholeofconcretereality(atonce objectand subject,real world changedor unchanged,man who thinksand changestheworld). Hegel'sPhilosophyis a PhilosophyofDeath-or ofAtheism3 ofHegelianphilosoThe essential-and theoriginal-characteristic at the phyis to describethe totalityofwhat is; and,consequently, whichappearsbeforeour same timethatit accountsforeverything accountofthethoughtandlanguagewhich eyes,to givean integrated reveal-that express-and appearance. "In my opinion,"says Hegel, "Everything dependson one's exTruthnot(only)as substance,butalso as pressingandunderstanding subject."4 andthefollowing, I repeatin a different 3. In thisparagraph, formwhathas been I havetodevelop saidbyAlexanderKojeve.Butnotonlyin a different form;essentially thesecondpartofthatsentence,whichis,atfirstglance,difficult tocomprehend inits concreteaspect: "The beingor theannihilationofthe 'Subject'is thetemporalizing annihilationofBeing,whichmustbe beforethe annihilatedbeing:thebeingofthe a beginning. Andbeingthe(temporal) 'Subject'necessarily has,therefore, annihilation in Being,beingnothingness whichnihilates(insofar ofthenothingness as Time),the it has an end."In particular, "Subject"is essentiallynegationofitself:therefore I have forthis(asI havealreadydoneinthepreceding followed thepartofIntroducparagraph) tionto theReadingofHegel whichconcernsparts2 and3 ofthepresentstudy,i.e., AppendixII, "The Idea ofDeath in thePhilosophyofHegel,"Kojeve,527-73. (TEL, note:This appendix,fromwhichall ofBataille'sreferences 529-75.) [Translator's to in English;it is notincludedin AllanBloom's Kojevearetaken,remainsuntranslated ofKojeve'sIntroduction reedition(andabridgment) totheReadingofHegel(NewYork: BasicBooks,1969).J 4. Cf.,G. W.F. Hegel,The Phenomenology ofSpirit,trans.A. V. Miller(Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1977),9-10. In his footnotes, Batailleattributes theFrench versionshe uses ofHegel to JeanHyppolite'stranslation of The Phenomenology of Spiritand oftenalso citesthepagesfromIntroduction a la lecturede Hegel where AlexandreKojevequotesthesamepassages.However, Kojeve'sversiondiffers fromthat ofHyppoliteandBataille'sfromboth.It is thelatterthatI havetranslated. Pagereferenceswillhereafter be giventotheEnglishtranslation byA. V.Miller,whichis oftenat significant variancewiththequotationsas I haverendered them.[Translator's note.]
12
Yale FrenchStudies
In otherwords,naturalknowledgeis incomplete,it does notand cannotenvisageanybutabstractentities,isolatedfroma whole,from whichalone is concrete.Knowledgemustat an indissolubletotality, the same time be anthropological:"in additionto the ontological mustfindthose bases ofnaturalreality," Kojevewrites,"[knowledge] ofhumanreality,whichalone is capable ofbeingrevealedthrough does not Discourse"(K,528; TEL, 530).Of course,thisanthropology envisageMan as do themodernsciencesbutas a movementimpossiIn a sense,it is actuallya ble to isolatefromtheheartofthetotality. whereman has takentheplace ofGod. theology, ButforHegel,thehumanrealitywhichhe placesat theheart,and fromthatofGreekphilosophy. center,ofthetotalityis verydifferent tradition, whichemis thatoftheJudeo-Christian His anthropology and individuality.Like Judeophasizes Man's liberty,historicity, Christianman, the Hegelian man is a spiritual(i.e., "dialectical") is fullyrealworld,"spirituality" being.Yet,fortheJudeo-Christian and Spiritproperly speaking, ized and manifestonlyin thehereafter, andeternalbeing." real"Spirit,is God: "an infinite truly"objectively Accordingto Hegel,the "spiritual"or "dialectical"beingis "necessarilytemporaland finite."This meansthatdeathalone assuresthe existenceof a "spiritual"or "dialectical"being,in the Hegelian sense. If the animal which constitutesman's naturalbeingdid not die,and-what is more-if deathdidnotdwellinhimas thesourceof his anguish-and all themoreso in thathe seeksit out,desiresitand no sometimesfreelychoosesit-there would be no man or liberty, historyorindividual.In otherwords,ifhe revelsin whatnonetheless him,ifhe is the being,identicalwithhimself,who risks frightens (identical)beingitself,thenmanis trulya Man: he separateshimself he is no longer,likea stone,an immutafromtheanimal.Henceforth ble given,he bearswithinhimNegativity;andtheforce,theviolence which casthimintotheincessantmovementofhistory, ofnegativity changeshimandwhichalonerealizesthetotalityoftheconcretereal throughtime.Onlyhistoryhas thepowertofinishwhatis,tofinishit in the passageoftime.And so theidea ofan eternaland immutable God is in thisperspectivemerelya provisionalend,whichsurvives while awaitingsomethingbetter.Only completedhistoryand the spiritoftheSage (ofHegel)-in whomhistoryrevealed,thenrevealed in full,the developmentofbeingand the totalityofits becomingoccupies, occupya sovereignposition,whichGod onlyprovisionally as a regent.
GEORGES BATAILLE
13
The Tragi-Comic Aspect ofMan's Divinity
This way of seeing thingscan with justice be consideredcomic. Besides,Hegel neverexpressedit explicitly.The textswhereit is are ambiguous,and theirextremedifficulty implicitlyaffirmed ultimatelykeptthemfromfullconsideration. Kojevehimselfis circumspect.He does notdwellon themandavoidsdrawingpreciseconcluthe situationHegel got sions. In orderto expressappropriately one wouldneed thetone,or at himselfinto,no doubtinvoluntarily, least,in a restrainedform,the horrorof tragedy. But thingswould quicklytake on a comic appearance. Be thatas itmay,topassthrough deathis so absentfromthedivine figurethat a mythsituatedin the traditionassociateddeath,and the agonyof death,withthe eternaland unique God of the JudeoChristiansphere.The deathofJesuspartakesofcomedytotheextent introducetheforgetting thatone cannotunarbitrarily ofhis eternal divinity-whichis his-into the consciousnessof an omnipotent andinfiniteGod.BeforeHegel's"absoluteknowledge," theChristian mythwas alreadybased preciselyon thefactthatnothingdivineis senseofsacred)whichis finite.Butthe possible(inthepre-Christian vague consciousnessin whichthe (Christian)mythofthe deathof God tookformdiffered, nonetheless,fromthatofHegel: in orderto a figureofGodthatlimitedtheinfinite as thetotality, it misrepresent was possibleto add on, in contradiction withits basis,a movement towardthefinite. Hegelwas able-and itwas necessaryforhim-to addup thesum (theTotality)ofthemovementswhichwereproducedin history. But it is humor, seems, incompatiblewith workand its necessaryassiduity.I shall returnto thissubject;I havemerely, forthemoment, shuffledcards....
It is difficultto pass froma humanityhumiliated
by divine grandeurto that... of the apotheosizedand sovereign Sage,his prideswollenwithhumanvanity. A Fundamental Text
In whatI havewrittenup to thispoint,onlyonenecessityemergesin a precisefashion:therecan be authenticWisdom(absoluteWisdom, orin generalanything approaching it)onlyiftheSageraiseshimself, ifI can put it thisway,to the heightofdeath,at whateveranguish to him.
14
Yale FrenchStudies
ofSpirit5forceA passagefromtheprefaceto thePhenomenology fullyexpressesthe necessityof such an attitude.Thereis no doubt fromthestartofthe "capitalimportance"ofthisadmirabletext,not ofHegel,butin all regards. onlyforan understanding "Death,"writesHegel,"-if we wishso to namethatunrealityis themostterriblethingthereis and to upholdtheworkofdeathis Impotentbeautyhates thetaskwhichdemandsthegreateststrength. makesthisdemandofbeauty, thisawareness,becauseunderstanding whichbeautycannotfulfill.Now,thelifeofSpiritis a requirement ofdeath,and sparesitselfdestrucnot thatlifewhichis frightened tion,butthatlifewhichassumesdeathandliveswithit.Spiritattains It is not its truthonlybyfindingitselfin absolutedismemberment. powerbybeingthePositivethatturnsawayfromthe that(prodigious) Negative,as when we say of something:thisis nothingor (thisis) falseand,having(thus)disposedofit,pass fromthereto something else; no, Spiritis thatpoweronlyto thedegreein whichit contemplatesthe Negativefaceto face(and)dwellswithit. This prolonged sojournis themagicalforcewhichtransposesthenegativeintogivenBeing." The Human NegationofNatureand oftheNaturalBeingofMan In principle,I oughttohavestartedthepassagejustcitedat an earlier point.I did not want to weighthis textdownby givingthe "enigmatic"lineswhichprecedeit.ButI shall sketchout thesenseofthe withoutwhichthe omittedlinesbyrestating Kojeve'sinterpretation, consequences,in spite of an appearanceof relativeclarity,would remainclosed to us. ForHegel, it is both fundamentaland altogetherworthyof as(thatis, language,discourse) tonishmentthathumanunderstanding should have had the force(an incomparableforce)to separateits constitutiveelementsfromthe Totality.These elements(thistree, trans.A. V.Miller,19.CitedbyKojeve, Spirit, 5. Cf.,Hegel,ThePhenomenologyof andBatailleall translatetheGerman"Zer538-39. (TEL,540-41.) Kojeve,Hyppolite, the whichI in turnhavegivenas "dismemberment," rissenheit"by "dechirement," to notethat ofHegel.It is important same wordwhichappearsin Miller'stranslation and "tearing"and,unlike has themeaningsof "shredding" theword"dechirement" units.InL'Exintopredetermined doesnotimplya disarticulation "dismemberment," forexample,Bataillespeaks of himselfas leftin "lambeaux" p6rienceint6rieure, torespondachevaitde. .. d6chirer," (shreds,as ofclothorpaper)whichhis "inability (Paris:Gallimard,1954),19).[Translator's note.]
GEORGES BATAILLE
15
thisbird,thisstone)arein factinseparablefromthewhole.Theyare "bound togetherby spatial and temporal,indeed material,bonds whichare indissoluble."TheirseparationimpliesthehumanNegativitytowardNatureofwhichI spoke,withoutpointingout its decisive consequences.Forthe man who negatesnaturecould not in any way live outside of it. He is not merelya man who negates Nature,he is firstofall an animal,thatis to say the verythinghe negates:he cannottherefore negateNaturewithoutnegatinghimin Kojeve'sbizarreexself.The intrinsictotalityofman is reflected pression,thattotalityis firstofall Nature(naturalbeing),it is "the animal"(Nature,theanimalindissolubly linkedto anthropomorphic and which thewhole ofNature, supportsMan). Thus humanNegadesireto negateNaturein destroying it-in tivity,Man's effective reducingit to his ownends,as when,forexample,he makesa toolof it (andthetoolwill be themodelofan objectisolatedfromNature)cannotstopat Man himself;insofaras he is Nature,Man is exposed to his own Negativity.To negateNature is to negatethe animal It is undoubtedlynot the underwhichpropsup Man's Negativity. breakerofNature'sunity,whichseeksman'sdeath,andyet standing, the separatingActionof the understanding impliesthe monstrous energyofthought,ofthe "pureabstractI," whichis essentiallyopposed to fusion,to the inseparablecharacterofthe elements-constitutiveofthewhole-which firmly upholdstheirseparation. It is the veryseparationof Man's being,it is his isolationfrom his isolationin themidstofhis ownkind, Nature,and,consequently, The animal,negating whichcondemnhim to disappeardefinitively. no oppositionnothing,lostin a globalanimalityto whichit offers justas thatanimalityis itselflostin Nature(andin thetotalityofall that is)-does
not truly disappear...
No doubt the individual fly
dies,but today'sfliesare the same as thoseoflast year.Last year's have died? . . . Perhaps, but nothinghas disappeared. The flies remain, equal to themselveslike the waves of the sea. This seems contrived:a biologistcan separatea flyfromtheswarm,all it takesis Buthe separatesitforhimself,he does notseparateit a brushstroke. forthe flies.To separateitselffromthe othersa flywouldneed the thenit wouldnameitselfand monstrousforceoftheunderstanding; do what the understanding normallyeffects by means oflanguage, which alone foundsthe separationof elementsand by foundingit foundsitselfon it,withina worldformedofseparatedand denominated entities.But in this game the human animal findsdeath; it
16
Yale FrenchStudies
findspreciselyhuman death,the onlyone whichfrightens, which freezes-but which only frightens and transfixes the man who is absorbedin his futuredisappearance, to theextentthathe is a separatedand irreplaceablebeing.The onlytruedeathsupposesseparationand,through thediscoursewhichseparates,theconsciousnessof beingseparated. "ImpotentBeautyHates the Understanding" Up to thispoint,Hegel's textpresentsa simpleand commontruth, but one enunciatedin a philosophicalmannerwhich is, properly speaking,sibylline.In the passage fromthe Prefacecited above, and describesa personalmomentof affirms Hegel,on the contrary, violence-Hegel, in otherwordsthe Sage, to whom an absolute definitive satisfaction. Knowledgehas conferred This is not an unbridledviolence.WhatHegel unleasheshereis not the violenceof or theviolence,oftheUnderstanding-the Nature,it is the energy, itselfto thepurebeauty NegativityoftheUnderstanding-opposing ofthe dream,whichcannotact,whichis impotent. Indeed,thebeautyofthedreamis on thatsideoftheworldwhere nothingis yetseparatedfromwhatsurrounds it,whereeachelement, in contrastto the abstractobjects of the Understanding, is given in space and time.But beautycannotact. It can onlybe concretely, and preserveitself.Throughactionit would no longerexist,since actionwouldfirstdestroywhatbeautyis: beauty,whichseeksnothing,whichis, whichrefusesto moveitselfbutwhichis disturbed by does theforceoftheUnderstanding. not have the Moreover,beauty whichasks it powerto respondto therequestoftheUnderstanding, to upholdandpreservetheworkofhumandeath.Beautyis incapable ofit, in the sense thatto upholdthatwork,it wouldbe engagedin it is an end,orit is not: thatis whyit is Action.Beautyis sovereign, not susceptibleto acting,whyit is, evenin principle,powerlessand why it cannotyield to the activenegationof the Understanding, whichchangestheworldand itselfbecomesotherthanit is.6 6. Here myinterpretation differs slightlyfromKojeve's(146 [TEL, 1481).[Translator'snote: thispassagetoo is missingfromBloom'sabridgment ofKojeve,which startsonlywiththelecturesgivenin 1937-38. (The passagein questionis fromthe 1936-37lectures.)I Kojevesimplystatesthat"impotent beautyis incapableofbending to therequirements oftheUnderstanding. The esthete,theromantic, themystic,flee itselfas something theidea ofdeathandspeakofNothingness whichis." Inparticular, he admirablydescribesthe mysticin thisway.But the same ambiguity is foundin
GEORGES BATAILLE
17
This beautywithoutconsciousnessofitselfcannot thereforereally-but notforthesamereasonas life,which"recoilsin horror from death and wantsto save itselffromannihilation"-beardeathand fromfeeling preserveitselfin it.This impotentbeautyat leastsuffers indissolubleTotalityofwhatis (ofthe thebreakupoftheprofoundly Beautywould like to remainthe sign of an accord concrete-real). of the real with itself.It cannot become conscious Negativity, and the lucid gaze, absorbedin the awakenedin dismemberment, Negative.This latterattitudepresupposestheviolentand laborious struggleof Man againstNatureand is its end. That is the historic strugglewhereMan constituteshimselfas "Subject"or as "abstract as a separatedand namedbeing. I" ofthe "Understanding," "Thatis to say,"Kojeveclarifies,"thatthoughtand thediscourse whichrevealsthe real are bornofthe negativeActionwhichactualizes Nothingnessbyannihilating Being:thegivenbeingofMan (in the Struggle)and the givenbeingofNature(through Work-which fromthereal contactwithdeathin theStruggle.) results,moreover, thatthehumanbeinghimselfis noneother That is to say,therefore, thanthatAction:he is deathwhichlivesa humanlife"(K,548; TEL, 550). I wantto insiston the continualconnectionbetweenan abyssal aspectand a tough,down-to-earth aspectin thisphilosophy, theonly one havingtheambitionto be complete.The divergent possibilities ofopposedhumanfiguresconfront eachotherandassemblein it: the figureofthedyingman and oftheproudone,who turnsfromdeath, thefigureofthemasterand thatofthemanpinnedto his work,the and thatoftheskeptic,whose egotistical figureoftherevolutionary interestlimitsdesire.This philosophyis not onlya philosophyof death.It is also one ofclass struggleand work. ButwithinthelimitsofthisstudyI do notintendto envisagethis otherside. I would like to comparethatHegeliandoctrineofdeath withwhatwe knowabout "sacrifice." philosophers at leastultimately. In truth, Kojeveseemsto me (inHegel,in Heidegger), wrongnot to have envisaged,beyondclassicalmysticism, a "consciousmysticism," consciousofmakinga BeingfromNothingness, and,inaddition,defining thatimpasse as a Negativity whichwouldno longerhavea fieldofaction(attheendofhistory). The atheisticmystic,self-conscious, consciousofhavingto die and to disappear, would live,as Hegelobviouslysaid concerning himself,"in absolutedismemberment"; but, forhim,itis onlythematterofa certainperiod:unlikeHegel,hewouldnevercomeout ofit,"contemplating theNegativerightintheface,"butneverbeingabletotranspose it intoBeing,refusing to do it and maintaining himselfin ambiguity.
18
Yale FrenchStudies II. SACRIFICE
Sacrifice,on theone hand, and on theother,theGaze ofHegel Absorbedin Death and Sacrifice I shallnotspeakoftheinterpretation ofsacrifice whichHegelgivesin the chapterofthePhenomenology devotedto Religion.7It no doubt ofthechapter, makessensein thedevelopment butit straysfromthe essentialand,fromthepointofviewofthetheoryofsacrifice, itis,in myopinion,ofless interestthantheimplicitrepresentation whichis givenin thetextofthePrefaceandwhichI shallcontinueto analyze. Concerningsacrifice,I can essentiallysay that,on the level,of Man has,in a sense,revealedandfoundedhuman Hegel'sphilosophy, in sacrificehe destroyed truthbysacrificing; theanimal8in himself, allowinghimselfandtheanimalto surviveonlyas thatnoncorporeal truthwhichHegel describesand whichmakes ofman-in Heidegger'swords-a beinguntodeath(Seinzum Tode),or-in thewordsof Kojevehimself- "deathwhichlives a humanlife." Actually,theproblemofHegelis givenin theactionofsacrifice. In sacrifice,death,on the one hand,essentiallystrikesthe corporeal being;and on the otherhand,it is preciselyin sacrificethat"death livesa humanlife."It shouldevenbe said thatsacrificeis theprecise theoriginalformulation responseto Hegel'srequirement, ofwhichI repeat: itselfin absolutedismem"Spiritattainsits truthonlybyfinding berment.It does not attain that (prodigious)powerby being the Positive that turns away from the Negative. . . no, Spirit is that
poweronlyin thedegreeto whichit contemplatestheNegativeface to face [and] dwells with it . . ."
ofsacrifice Ifone takesintoaccountthefactthattheinstitution is incarnatedin Man's practicallyuniversal,it is clearthatNegativity, ofHegel,butalso thatit construction death,notonlyis thearbitrary in of has playeda role thespirit thesimplestmen,withoutanycom7. The Phenomenology ofSpirit,chapter8: Religion,B.: Religionin theformof Art,a) The abstractworkof art (434-35). In thesetwo pages,Hegel dwellson the disappearanceof objectiveessence,but withoutdevelopingits consequences.On thesecondpageHegellimitshimselfto considerations properto "aestheticreligion" (thereligionoftheGreeks). 8. Still,althoughanimalsacrifice seemstopredatehumansacrifice, thereis nothingtoprovethatthechoiceofan animalsignifies theunconsciousdesiretoopposethe animalas such;manis onlyopposedto corporealbeing,thebeingthatis given.He is, furthermore, justas opposedto theplant.
GEORGES BATAILLE
19
mon groundscomparableto thosewhichare regulatedonce and for all by the ceremoniesof a Church-but nonethelessin a univocal to see thatacrosstheworlda communalNegamanner.It is striking tivityhas maintaineda strictparallelismin the developmentof whichhave the same formand the same ratherstableinstitutions, effects. WhetherHe Lives orDies, Man CannotImmediatelyKnowDeath I shall speak laterof the profounddifferences betweenthe man of sacrifice, actingin ignorance(unconscious)ofthefullscope ofwhat to theimplicationsofa he is doing,andtheSage (Hegel)surrendering Knowledgewhich,in his own eyes,is absolute. the questionofmanifesting theNegaDespite thesedifferences, tivestillremains(andstillundera concreteform,i.e.,at theheartof whoseconstitutive elementsareinseparable). The privitheTotality, ofNegativityis death,butdeath,in fact,reveals legedmanifestation it is his natural,animalbeingwhosedeathreveals nothing.In theory, Man to himself,but the revelationnevertakesplace. Forwhen the himdies,thehumanbeinghimselfceasesto animalbeingsupporting be. In orderforMan torevealhimselfultimatelytohimself, he would have to die,buthe wouldhave to do it whileliving-watchinghimselfceasingto be. In otherwords,deathitselfwouldhaveto become (self-)consciousnessat theverymomentthatit annihilatestheconscious being.In a sense,thisis whattakesplace (whatat least is on thepointoftakingplace,orwhichtakesplacein a fugitive, ungraspIn thesacrifice, able manner)bymeansofa subterfuge. thesacrificer identifieshimselfwiththeanimalthatis struckdowndead.And so he dies in seeinghimselfdie,and even,in a certainway,byhis own will, one in spiritwith the sacrificialweapon.But it is a comedy! Atleastitwouldbe a comedyifsomeothermethodexistedwhich could revealto thelivingtheinvasionofdeath:thatfinishing offof the finitebeing,whichhis Negativity-whichkills him,ends him and definitively suppresseshim-accomplishes alone and whichit alone can accomplish.ForHegel, satisfactioncan only take place, desirecan be appeasedonlyin the consciousnessofdeath.Ifit were based on the exclusionof death,satisfaction would contradictthat whichdeathdesignates,ifthe satisfiedbeingwho is not conscious, not utterlyconscious,of what in a constitutivemannerhe is, i.e., mortal,wereeventuallyto be drivenfromsatisfaction bydeath.That
20
Yale FrenchStudies
is whythe consciousnessthathe has ofhimselfmustreflect(must themovementofnegativity whichcreateshim,whichmakes mirror) a man ofhim fortheveryreasonthatit will one daykill him. He will be killedby his own negativity, but forhim,thereafter, therewill be nothingleft;his is a creativedeath,but if the consciousness of death-of the marvelousmagic of death-does not touchhimbeforehe dies,duringhis lifeit will seemthatdeathis not destinedto reachhim,and so the deathawaitinghim will not give him a human character.Thus, at all costs,man must live at the momentthathe reallydies,or he mustlive withtheimpressionof reallydying. KnowledgeofDeath CannotDo Withouta Subterfuge: Spectacle This difficulty proclaimsthenecessityofspectacle,orofrepresentationin general,withoutthepracticeofwhichitwouldbe possiblefor us to remainalien and ignorantin respectto death,just as beasts are.Indeed,nothingis less animalthanfiction,whichis apparently moreor less separatedfromthereal,fromdeath. Man does not live bybreadalone,butalso bythecomedieswith whichhe willinglydeceiveshimself.In Man it is theanimal,it is the naturalbeing,which eats. But Man takes partin ritesand performances. Or else he can read: to the extentthat it is sovereignauthentic-, literature prolongsin himthehauntingmagicofperformances,tragicor comic. In tragedy,9 at least,it is a questionofouridentifying withsome characterwho dies, and of believingthatwe die, althoughwe are butit has alive. Furthermore, pureand simpleimaginationsuffices, orbooks, thesame meaningas theclassicsubterfuges, performances, to whichthe masses have recourse. Agreementand DisagreementbetweenNaive Behaviorsand Hegel's Lucid Reaction withtheprimary theme Byassociatingit withsacrificeand,thereby, in performances), I have sought ofrepresentation (inart,in festivals, humanbehavto demonstratethatHegel's reactionis fundamental ior.It is not a fantasyor a strangeattitude,it is par excellencethe on. 9. I discusscomedyfurther
GEORGES BATAILLE
21
It is notHegelalone,it is expressionendlesslyrepeatedbytradition. all ofhumanitywhicheverywhere alwayssought,obliquely,to seize whatdeathbothgaveand tookawayfromhumanity. BetweenHegel and the man of sacrificethereneverthelessremainsa profounddifference. Hegel was consciousofhis representationoftheNegative:he situatedit,lucidly,in a definitepointofthe "coherentdiscourse"whichrevealedhim to himself.That Totality includedthe discoursewhichrevealsit. The man of sacrifice,who lacked a discursiveconsciousnessofwhathe did,had onlya "sensual" awareness,i.e., an obscureone, reducedto an unintelligible emotion.It is truethatHegelhimself,beyonddiscourse,andin spite receivedtheshockof ofhimself(in an "absolutedismemberment,") Moreviolently, aboveall,fortheprimary deathevenmoreviolently. reasonthatthebroadmovementofdiscourseextendedits reachbeof the Totalityof the real. yondlimits,i.e., withinthe framework Beyondtheslightestdoubt,forHegel,thefactthathe was stillalive The man ofsacrifice, on theotherhand, was simplyan aggravation. maintainshis lifeessentially.He maintainsit not onlyin the sense ofdeath,but [also in the thatlifeis necessaryfortherepresentation sensethat]he seeksto enrichit.Butfroman externalperspective, the palpable and intentionalexcitementof sacrificewas of greaterinofHegel. The excitementof terestthantheinvoluntarysensitivity which I speak is well-known,is definable;it is sacred horror:the richestandthemostagonizingexperience, whichdoesnotlimititself but which,on the contrary, to dismemberment opens itself,like a theatrecurtain,ontoa realmbeyondthisworld,wheretherisinglight all thingsand destroystheirlimitedmeaning. ofdaytransfigures Indeed,ifHegel'sattitudeopposeslearnedconsciousnessand the ofa discursivethinking limitlessorganization to thenaiveteofsacrifice,stillthatconsciousnessandthatorganization remainunclearon one point;one cannotsaythatHegel was unawareofthe "moment" of sacrifice;this "moment"is included,implicatedin the whole movementof the Phenomenology-whereit is the Negativityof death,insofaras it is assumed,whichmakes a man of the human animal.Butbecausehe didnotsee thatsacrifice in itselfborewitness to the entiremovementof death,10the finalexperience-the one 10. Perhapsforlack of a Catholicreligiousexperience.I imagineCatholicism closerto paganexperience;I meanto a universalreligiousexperience fromwhichthe distanceditself.Perhapsa profound Reformation Catholicpietycouldalonehaveintroducedtheinwardsensewithoutwhichthephenomenology ofsacrifice wouldbe im-
22
Yale FrenchStudies
peculiarto theSage-describedin thePrefaceto thePhenomenology was at firstinitialand universal-he didnotknowto whatextenthe was right-withwhatprecisionhe describedtheintimatemovement of Negativity;he did not clearlyseparatedeathfromthe feelingof sadnessto whichnaiveexperienceopposesa sortofshuntingyardof the emotions. Pleasureand the Sadness ofDeath ofdeathforHegelthatinspired Itwas preciselytheunivocalcharacter fromKojeve,whichapplies,again,to the thefollowingcommentary theidea of passagefromthe Preface:(K, 549; TEL, 551). "Certainly, deathdoesnotheightenthewell-beingofMan; it doesnotmakehim happynordoes it givehim anypleasure."Kojevewonderedin what withtheNegative,froma resultsfroma familiarity waysatisfaction toreject tete--tetewithdeath.He believedithisduty,outofdecency, The factthatHegel himselfsaid,in thisrespect, vulgarsatisfaction. itselfin absolutedismemthatSpirit"onlyattainsit truthbyfinding in principle, withKojeve'sNegation.Conseberment"goestogether, quently,it would even be superfluousto insist.... Kojevesimply man's states that the idea of death "is alone capable if satisfying to be which . . the desire Hegel places . "recognized," Indeed, pride." couldbe expressedin an intrepid at theoriginofhistoricalstruggles, toitsbestadvantage."Itis attitude,ofthesortthatshowsa character only,"saysKojeve,"in beingorin becomingawareofone'smortality or finitude,in existingand in feelingone's existencein a universe his liberty, withouta beyondorwithouta God,thatMan can affirm andhis individuality- uniquein all theworld-and his historicity possible.Modem knowledge,much moreextensivethanthatof Hegel's time,has assuredlycontributed to thesolutionofthatfundamental enigma(why,withoutany butI seriouslybelievethata plausiblereason,has humanityin general"sacrificed"?), correctphenomenological descriptioncould only be based on at least a Catholic period. -But at anyrate,Hegel,hostiletobeingwhichdoesnothing,-towhatsimplyis, in militarydeath;it is throughsuchdeath and is notAction,-was moreinterested thatheperceivedthethemeofsacrifice (buthe himselfusesthewordina moralsense): he statesin his Lecturesof 1805-06, "and war are the "The state-of-the-soldier," ofthepersonal-I, thedangerofdeathfortheparticular,-that realsacrifice objectively ofhis abstractimmediateNegativity . . A"(inHegel,SdmtlicheWerke, contemplation to theReadingofHegel,558 [TEL, vol. 20, 261-62. CitedbyKojevein Introduction 560]).Nonetheless,religioussacrifice has,evenfromHegel'spointofview,an essential signification.
GEORGES BATAILLE
23
have thembe recognized.(Ibid.).ButifKojevesetsaside vulgarsatisfaction-happiness-he now also sets aside Hegel's "absolutedisis noteasilyreconciled memberment": indeed,suchdismemberment withthe desireforrecognition. in one point, Satisfaction and dismemberment coincide,however, butheretheyharmonizewithpleasure.This coincidencetakesplace in "sacrifice";it is generallyunderstoodas thenaive formoflife,as everyexistencein presenttime,whichmanifestswhatMan is: the noveltywhichhe signifiesin theworldafterhe has becomeMan, on the conditionthathe has satisfiedhis "animal" needs. At anyrate,pleasure,or at least sensualpleasure,is such thatin touphold:theidea wouldbe difficult respecttoitKojeve'saffirmation and in in a certain certainmanner ofdeathhelps, cases, to multiply the pleasuresof the senses. I go so faras to believethat,underthe theworld(orratherthegeneralimagery)ofdeath formofdefilement, is at the base of erotism.The feelingof sin is connectedin lucid consciousnessto the idea of death,and in the same mannerthe feelingofsinis connectedwithpleasure.11Thereis in factno human in its circumstances, withoutthe pleasurewithoutsomeirregularity of breakingofan interdiction-thesimplest,and themostpowerful that of is which, currently nudity. Moreover, possessionwas associatedin itstimewiththeimageof sacrifice;it was a sacrificein which woman was the victim....
That
itrefers associationfromancientpoetryis verymeaningful; backto a precisestateofsensibilityin whichthesacrificialelement,thefeelingofsacredhorroritself,joined,in a weakenedstate,to a tempered pleasure;in which,too,thetasteforsacrificeandtheemotionwhich totheultimateuses ofpleasure. itreleasedseemedinno waycontrary liketragedy, was an elementofa It mustbe said too thatsacrifice, celebration;it bespokea blind,perniciousjoy and all the dangerof thatjoy,and yetthisis preciselytheprincipleofhumanjoy;it wears out and threatenswithdeathall who getcaughtup in itsmovement. Gay Anguish,AnguishedGaiety To theassociationofdeathandpleasure,whichis nota given,at least is notan immediategivenin consciousness,is obviouslyopposedthe 11. Thisis at leastpossibleand,ifitis a matterofthemostcommoninterdictions, banal.
24
Yale FrenchStudies
ofconsciousness.In prinsadnessofdeath,alwaysin thebackground beforedeath."In prinhumanity"recoilsin horror ciple,consciously, ciple,the destructiveeffectsofNegativityhave Natureas theirobwith ject.ButforMan's Negativityto drivehimintoa confrontation danger,forhim to make ofhimself,or at least oftheanimal,ofthe negation,the naturalbeingthathe is, the objectofhis destructive is his unconsciousnessofthecause andtheeffects banalprerequisite ofhisactions.Now,itwas essentialforHegeltogainconsciousnessof Negativityas such,to captureits horror-herethehorrorofdeathbyupholdingand bylookingtheworkofdeathrightin theface. Hegel,in thisway,is less opposedto thosewho "recoil"thanto thosewho say: "it is nothing."He seems to distancehimselfmost fromthosewho reactwithgaiety. I wantto emphasize,as clearlyas possible,aftertheirsimilarity, the oppositionbetweenthe naive attitudeand thatof the-absolute-Wisdom of Hegel. I am not sure,in fact,thatof the two attitudesthemorenaiveis theless absolute. I shallcitea paradoxicalexampleofa gayreactioninthefaceofthe workofdeath. The IrishandWelshcustomofthe"wake"is littleknownbutwas It is thesubjectofJoyce's stillpracticedat theendofthelast century. ofFinnegan(however, lastwork,12 FinnegansWake-the deathwatch at best).In Wales,the the readingof this famousnovel is difficult coffinwas placedopen,standingat theplace ofhonorofthehouse. The dead man would be dressedin his finestsuit and top hat. His who honoredthe departedall familywould inviteall ofhis friends, the morethe longertheydancedand the deepertheydrankto his health.It is thedeathofan other,butin suchinstances,thedeathof the otheris alwaysthe image of one's own death.Only underone conditioncould anyoneso rejoice;withthepresumedagreementof the dead man-who is an other-, thedead man thatthedrinkerin his turnwill become shall have no othermeaningthanhis predecessor. This paradoxicalreactioncould be considereda responseto the desire to deny the existenceof death. A logical desire?Not in theleast,I think.In Mexico today,deathis commonlyenvisagedon the same level as the amusementsthat can be foundat festivals: 12. On thesubjectofthisobscurebook,videE. Jolas,"Elucidationdumonomythe in Critique(July1948):579-95. de JamesJoyce"
GEORGES BATAILLE
25
skeletonpuppets,skeletoncandies,skeletonmerry-go-rounds-but thiscustomis associatedwithan intensecult ofthedead,a visible obsessionwithdeath.13 IfI envisagedeathgaily,it is not thatI too say,in turningaway "it is nothing"or "it is false."On theconfromwhatis frightening: trary, gaiety,connectedwiththeworkofdeath,causesme anguish,is accentuatedbymyanguish,and in returnexacerbatesthatanguish: ultimately,gay anguish,anguishedgaietycause me, in a feverish whereit is my joy thatfinally chill,'4 "absolutedismemberment," tearsme apart,butwheredejectionwouldfollowjoywereI nottorn all thewayto the end,immeasurably. Thereis onepreciseoppositionthatI wouldliketobringoutfully: on the one hand Hegel's attitudeis less whole than thatof naive but thisis meaninglessunless,reciprocally, one sees that humanity, thenaiveattitudeis powerlessto maintainitselfwithoutsubterfuge. Discourse Gives UsefulEnds to Sacrifice"Afterwards." I have linkedthe meaningof sacrificeto Man's behavioronce his animalneedshavebeensatisfied:Man differs fromthenaturalbeing whichhe also is; thesacrificial gestureis whathe humanlyis,andthe spectacleofsacrificethenmakeshis humanitymanifest.Freedfrom animal need,man is sovereign:he does whathe pleases-his pleasure.Undertheseconditionshe is finallyable to make a rigorously autonomousgesture.So longas he neededto satisfyanimalneeds,he had to actwithan endin view(hehad to securefood,protecthimself fromthecold).This supposesa servitude, a seriesofactssubordinated to a finalresult:thenatural,animalsatisfaction withoutwhichMan properly speaking,sovereign Man,couldnotsubsist.ButMan's intelligence,his discursivethought,developedas functionsofservilelabor.Onlysacred,poeticwords,limitedto thelevelofimpotentbeauty,have retainedthe powerto manifestfull sovereignty. Sacrifice, is a sovereign,autonomousmannerofbeingonlyto consequently, the extentthatit is uninformed by meaningfuldiscourse.To the extentthatdiscourseinforms is givenin termsof it,whatis sovereign 13. This cameoutin thedocumentary whichEisensteindrewfromhisworkfora longfilm:i VivaMexico!The cruxofthisfilmdealtwiththebizarrepracticeswhichI have discussed. 14. Reading"chaudet froid"for"chaud-froid," whichmeansa dishprepared hot butservedcold.
26
Yale FrenchStudies
servitude.Indeedbydefinition whatis sovereigndoes notserve.But simple discourse must respond to the question that discursive thoughtasks concerningthemeaningthateach thingmusthave on the level of utility.In principle,each thingis thereto servesome purposeor other.Thus the simple manifestation of Man's link to annihilation,the purerevelationofMan to himself(at themoment his attention)passes fromsovereignty when deathtransfixes to the primacyofservileends.Myth,associatedwithritual,had at firstthe butdiscourseconcerning impotentbeautyofpoetry, sacrificeslipped intovulgar,self-serving interpretation. Startingwitheffects naively such as theappeasingofa godorthe imaginedon thelevelofpoetry, discoursebecametheabunpurityofbeings,the end ofmeaningful The substantialworkofFrazer, danceofrainorthecity'swell-being. thatwerethemostimpotent who recallsthoseformsofsovereignty theleastpropitiousforhappiness,generally and,apparently, tendsto reducethemeaningoftheritualact to thesame purposesas laborin thefields,and to make ofsacrificean agrarianrite.Todaythatthesis butit seemed-reasonable ofthe GoldenBoughis discredited, insofar who sacrificed inscribedsovereign as thesamepeople sacrifice within theframeofa languageofplowmen.It is truethatin a veryarbitrary manner,whichnevermeritedthecredenceofrigorousreason,these people attempted,and musthave laboredto,submitsacrificeto the laws of action,laws to which theythemselvesweresubmitted,or laboredto submitthemselves. on theBasis Impotenceofthe Sage to AttainSovereignty ofDiscourse of sacrificeis not absolute either.It is not Thus, the sovereignty absolute to the extentthat the institutionmaintainswithinthe worldof efficaciousactivitya formwhose meaningis, on the contrary,sovereign.A slippagecannotfail to occur,to the benefitof servitude. IftheattitudeoftheSage (Hegel)is not,forits part,sovereign, at leastthingsfunctionin theoppositedirection;Hegeldidnotdistance he cameas himselfandifhe was unabletofindauthenticsovereignty, near to it as he could. What separatedhim fromit would even be werewe not able to glimpsea richerimage through imperceptible these alterationsof meaning,which touch on sacrificeand which have reducedit froman end to a simplemeans. The keyto a lesser
GEORGES BATAILLE
27
rigorousnesson the partof the Sage is the fact,not thatdiscourse withina framethat cannotsuit him and engageshis sovereignty in Hegel's whichatrophiesit,butpreciselytheopposite:sovereignty attitudeproceedsfroma movementwhich discourserevealsand which,in the Sage's spirit,is neverseparatedfromits revelation.It cannever,therefore, be fullysovereign;theSage,infact,cannotfailto subordinateit to thegoal ofa Wisdomwhichsupposesthe completion of discourse.Wisdom alone will be full autonomy,the sovereigntyofbeing. .
.
. At least it would be ifwe could findsovereignty
the bysearchingforit: and,in fact,ifI searchforit,I am undertaking buttheprojectofbeing-sovereignly projectofbeing-sovereignly: preof supposesa servilebeing!Whatnonethelessassuresthesovereignty ofwhich the momentdescribedis the "absolutedismemberment" Hegel speaks,therupture,fora time,ofdiscourse.But thatrupture itselfis not sovereign.In a sense it is an accidentin the ascent. thenaiveandthesageones,areboth Althoughthetwosovereignties, of death,beyondthe difference betweena decline at sovereignties birth(betweena gradualalterationand an imperfect manifestation), on yetanotherprecisepoint:on Hegel'spart,itis precisely theydiffer a questionofan accident.It is nota strokeoffate,a piece ofbadluck, whichwouldbe forever deprivedofsense.Dismemberment is,on the of attains full its writes meaning. ("Spirit only Hegel truth," contrary, (but it is my emphasis),"by findingitselfin absolutedismemberIt is whatlimitedand imment.")But thismeaningis unfortunate. poverishedtherevelationwhichtheSage drewfromlingering in the regionswheredeathreigns.He welcomedsovereignty as a weight, whichhe let go ... Do I intendto minimizeHegel'sattitude?Butthecontrary is true! I wantto showtheincomparablescopeofhis approach.To thatendI cannotveil the veryminimal(and even inevitable)partof failure. To mymind,it is rathertheexceptionalcertainty ofthatapproach whichis broughtout in myassociations.Ifhe failed,one cannotsay thatit was the resultof an error.The meaningof the failureitself fromthatof the failurewhich caused it: the erroralone is differs perhaps fortuitous.In general,it is as an authenticmovement, weightywith sense,thatone must speak ofthe "failure"ofHegel. Indeed,manis alwaysin pursuitofan authenticsovereignty. That sovereignty, apparently, was, in a certainsense,originallyhis, but doubtlessthatcould not thenhavebeenin a consciousmanner,and so in a sense it was not his, it escapedhim. We shall see thatin a
28
Yale FrenchStudies
numberofwayshe continuedtopursuewhatforever eludedhim.The essentialthingis thatone cannotattainit consciouslyand seek it, because seekingdistancesit. And yetI can believethatnothingis givenus thatis not givenin thatequivocalmanner. TranslatedbyJonathan Strauss
