o

Jefltey Bernstein(,,lhge ol thc Holr- ( ross. \\'orce\rcr. \lA. Li\ \

A ntinomical M essianis m :

r0 (1010) lol-3:3

Agamben's Interpretation of Benjamin's "History" Theses

Think $hat it would bc to have a work conccived liom outside the seit. a work that wouldlet us escape the limited perspective of the individual cgo, not only 1() entcr into sclves likeour o\\'n but to gi\e spcech to that which has no language. to thc bird perching on lhe edgeofthe gutter, to the tree in spring and the lree in lilll. to stone, to ecment, to plastic...

Was this not perhaps rvhat Ovid was aiming at, uhen he *rote about the continuity offornrs? And what Lucretius was aiming at when hc identiticd himsell with that naturccommon to each and eYery thing)

Italo Calvinol

The nrore passionately thought denies its conditionality for drc sake tll'the unconditional,the more unconsciously, and so calamitously. it is delivered up to the world.

'Iheodor Adomo:

I ntroduclttn' Rentu'ks

l . Provoc qri<.tns

The above epigrams are included here insolhr as thcy bear distinct relations to the workof Giorgio Agarnben precisely in thcir contlict rvith a cenain aspect ol'his thought. Thefirst epigram cornes lrorr Calvino's 1985-86 Charles Eliot Norton Lectures which, ac-cording to Aganrben, echo the close work the two shared lbet*een the years ol 1974and 1976) in their attempts to "dellne the progam ol'a rer iew" rr hich "rvas to be dedi-cated 1rl . . . idcntilying nothing less than the categorial structures of ltalian culture".lThe second epigram (somewhat more central to the topic ol this paper) comes from a

philosopher whose own rvork shares *ith Agamben a passionate claim to proximitywith respect to thc thought of Walter Benjarnin. Thesc epigrams. are mcant as provoca-tions insofar as thcy raise the significant issue oi Agamben's antinomical tnessian-

' trato Calvino..S* tle nx)\ t'i)t The .\dt Ilillcnnittn. v^ns.. Patrrck ( rcigh (Na$ York: Virtag!' Inter-national. l99l). l :,{.

- lheodnr Atlorno. lliniDtt .lh,dltu Rllectiotls (h ,1 Ddnagrd Lile. trans.- Edmond Jephcot{ (New

,., IIranktirrt anr Mrin: Suhrkirmp Verl0g. l95l]).'(iiorgio Agan)b!'n. Tht htl Ol Th( I't,en SnkliL\ h1 P.!tir: trrns.. I)aniel ilellcr-Roazen {Stanford:

Stanford Uni\ersit:- Pre\s- 1999)- \i (!)riginally puhlrshed as (orLcd'ia lrdliuL': .S/ri./l ./i 2.)elnrl lluarsilioLdirori. l9q6l).

lsr

ufarinstl

lnri\

n(in

tItC.

Sr

sITte

P:

B

pilahi

I

P.

(llH

t.

B,

ul

l:

010) 304-323

Theses

ork that wouldinto sell es likeng on thc edgelastic...e continuit.v ofith dlat nature

hato CrIinol

unconditional.

s to the workthought. The:s which. ac-ears ol' 1974rs to be dedi-an culture".lomes liom a

b proxinity- as pro\ oca-:al rnessian-

Jephcoll (Ne\!

rTcn (Slinlo :

tlli ./ llvlrr\ilio

ism- -i.e.. his desire to "think a human community that would not have (only) the fig-ure o1'the laui'.r Pace Calvino. rhis desire constitutes an inrpulse {in however nuancedard mediated a manner) to break with history. Pace Adorno, this desire, constitutes animpulse (despite its materialist style) to reach a montent of unconditionality (or, 'assuch') with respect to language, thought, and possible ensuing lbrms of life (or, inAgamben's terms. 'the coming community'). Thus, while both epigrams share com-mitnrenls with Agambcn's thought (i.e., the radical questioning of both modern subjec-tivity and a thinking which would deny its own finitude), they sharply difltr liomAgamben's approach lo such commitments.

These themes-history, conditionality and their rejection in Agamben's anti-nomical messianisrn-are the themes which will be presently taken up. To lay them outin a manner appropriate to the space allotted fbr this paper, they will be initially raisedwithin the general context of Agamben's usage of Jewish sources and subsequentlytreated in the .specilic context of his interpretation of Walter Benjamin's theses "On theConcept of H istory".

2. Jewish Sources in Aganthen

Sensitive readers ol'Agamben's texts cannot fail to notice his continuous and quitespecific usage of Jeu ish sources n'lost ol u'hich occur in his texts on Walter Benjamin.The sources primarily inhabit an interpretive range spanning from what might betermed 'unconventional' to'heretical' (at least within the conlexl oflhe normative rab-binic tradition). Examples include (l) a discussion of Shabbatai Sevi's statement that"'violation of the Torah is its fulfillment"''. 12) a discussion of rhe Angel of History inBenjamin's "History" theses uhich draws from Kabalistic texts (particularly the Zo-har) (P: 146\, and (3) a discussion ofthe Genesis story as retold in the Midrashic com-pilation Genesrs Rabbah in order to illustrate messianic time as it comes to be formu-lated along Pauline (and, for Agamben, de.facto Benjaminian) lines.6 Ifone includeshis usage ofthe Talrnud (in. e.g.. his essay on Derrida entitled 'Pardes'[P: 205-219]). a

1(iiorgio Agamhen- "ln This !-\ilc (ltalian DiaD. 199:-199.1)'. in.lleans Il hout End .*tes On htti-

/ii!. trans.. Vincenzo BiDetli a'ld Cesarc Casarino (Minncapolis: Unirersity of Minnesota Press. 2000). I34-ll5 {originally published as trtczzi san:a.lin! JTurin: Bollati tsoringhieri. 19961). llencefbrth as (MWE:lage number).

'(riorgro i\gumhcn. Thc Messrirh and thc So\erei!n. rt Pot ti liti(. Coll(\1ld Essu.ts tn Phitosr'-pirr. ed. an-d trais.. Daniel Hcller-RoaTen (Slanlird: Stanii)rd Universitl- Press. I999). 167. Hencclorth as(P: page unlbcr). Scc also (jiorgio ASanrben. l/orl, S./.c/. .So|etcign h\tet.unLl Bure /-ilc. lrans.. DaDi('lHcllcr-Roazcn (Stanibrd: Stanlbrd Lhiversity l'rcss. l99ll). 56-57 loriuinally published as lbmo Su(o.: llporL'n sorrunt a b nt({r |r/r? (Turin: Ciulio Einaudi. 1995}. llcncelbflh as (HS: prge number). .{gamben s

exanrplcs lcnd to occur in nultiple te\rs. [:or purposes ol'bre\it]. I \\ ill relcr onll lo the pcrlinenl llxlual

" (liorgio Agambcn. Tfu hne Thur Renoin\ .1 (bnn!tit.tr\'ot th( l.(ler b th, n.)r,.r/r.\. lrans-. Patri-cil Baile) (Slllnli)rd: Slanlbrd Unircrsil\ Pre\s. l0(,5)- 71-7: (originall) publishcd as ll rttnpo che restu.L.:n tonntcnrrt ullu Lerron ui RonluDi ltutin Bollari BonnBhicri. 2(l{)01). llcnccli)flh as (TR: pagc number)Whil!'this te\l rs oslcnsibl! a commentary on Puul s Lcltcr 10 thc Ronuns. it ultllrately dl3ploys Paul itndBenjarnru as parallcl fironrcnts ofa dialecticil inralc in ordcr lo shou ho\r their tcrls beslo$ intelligibilrll''up(nr cach othcr llence. Nhal Agarnben acconrplishes is an intcresting Pauline rerdtng olElcniamin \rhichis srnruhuncousl\ .r Ben.laninian readirrg of Pdul. For this rcason. 1 includc it. \\'ilb some hesirNlion. amongABinrbc. s tcrls dc.rling $ith Benjxrrin Cl.. Giorgio Acrnrhcn. "Tlrc-limc Thal ls Leli. l7rrcic, Vol. 7.

lssuL' | ( Fall lool ). 7'8.

306 llll kr \ l:ill{Nslll\

picture bcgins to emcrge conccrning thc tcrrittn ol Jerrish strurccs irl $hich Agambcn's

thought movos." ' -" n."J.^ *lght be tempted to ask thc lbllou'ing question: \\hy rvould Aganrben'

", " p;il;;;;;"t. iicq ue nt the Talmud. Midrash' Zohai' and Shabbati Seri'rather than

in,oJ lunt"n,l,,,t"ll1 rec.gniztrJ philo'ophicrrl sotrr(cs (c g . Mrttnonide' t' fhc rn-

.*", to ,ttil; question is JtLaightiuruard cnough: Agatnbe'n s anlittomicalism would

;:;.;;;i;; tio* p-...aingihrough the Je*ish tratlition,(or anv rradition' firr that

matter) according to the catcgory ol ihe'conventional lnsofar as 'conventional recog-

,rl,f ,r""*rrf a l'uriction as a /a-r, ir hich-nrany times oppressively-rcgulatcs cunrnruni-

ti.r'i,fir.u,i*. or otheruise). Agamben's irnpulse would be to take up this tradition in

;;;;;;;t;i";"i manner: ..what-is at issue here are nor simply antinomical tendenL ies

il;;;;;fi; i".onliont the pleromatic state in $ hich the Torah' restored to its origi-

nal tbrm, contains neither commandments nor prohibitions but only a medley of unor-

dered letters."(P: 167: italics minei geyona '!i hulukhu heytrnd law as strch lies the

;i;;,i;ii;;f ;'.pcriencing tradition ditl"rcntlv Altambcn s desire is to rap into' via

conlronmtion. lhe potcnliality ol'other crperiences'

However. it one \ere to specify this question so that tt asks about the placement

of Jewish sources I.iarlr the p,.",l,rkinu,,t .ontcxt oJ Btty,nnin .s thought, a conllict

arises. The conventional answer would be that these types ofJewish sources were very

i"ri".",i"i"" g*lamin's thought; hence, an interpreiaiion of Benjarnin rvould need to

take into account such sources (in addition to th;ir subsequent interpretalion by Cer-

shom Scholem). Although Rgamben's interpretations of Benjamin certainly include

thcse elements. his antinornical de,i," ntt""it'ttt that these inclusions be given a dif-

f"i"", ,", of."o.nnr' Put difl'erentiy. \\ h) 'rtirt Benjamin be read in a conrentional

*unn"r't rn the name o1'rvhat /ro| could such a rcatling ultimarely be justi/iedl w.hat

;';';i;t;;;t ."uld posrlblv bcsto\\ /(3rlix'rrl('rt. to srid con\ention? l1'Aganrben

a..ir*? call into question thl normatir it! ol rradition as such'. then a re-reading of a

gi"." ,r"Ai,i"" cannot simply appcal to the normarir ity in question Ditlbrently stated'

i"..",i'r" or con\entional nunii'estutiont of tradition arc precis<h foreclosed as rvays

to makc scnse ol'interpretive practiccs'- - ii .lgu.U.n wants Io interrupt tbe priority of conventional and normative con-

t.*,, io. hlr,ori.ul appropriation. ihen the only way the abo\e question can.be an-

swered is by reversing the terms--i.e , Agamben's iarricular concatenation of Jewish

r""t*. *iii Benjamii's thought occurs rirt in ordei to rely on a convcntion tbr inter-

"."iinn g.niu*in Uut rather that the Jewish intellectual tradition can be lvrested from

i;r';;";i;;;ii,t noi ,+guto"n' Benjarnin is not the end of a long tradition of nor-

rnative Judaism: instead, he consiitutet ttre point of departure for releasing a marginal-

ir.J f,rir,orv oiphilosophical JuJaisrn ln Agamben's.tiro.ught'.this amounts to a substi-

tutio" oiiiguriiy by messianism as Judaisri's (and' in lirct' all religion's) primary fo-

cus: ..The tiesis I would like to adyance is that the messianic kingdom is 'ot

one cate-

!o.y urnong others within religious experience but is' rather' its linrtt conccpt lne

Agon,turn r r"*o u.. no(.d,?/e/8/r \oid ol-relcrencc to Maimonidcsl hc does makc rcl'ercntc lo llre

t:'r'ceniury ptrilovrpherrrabhi in his essay on Banleby llo$e"er' ercn therc /\gamben s rclirence crccurs

"1,n.- ifl" iri"i"i "r,"rt

or.v"tnlonia"il d.Jirriif.i.itn rr,* rtr iao"hic rliscLrssit-rn ofo c,rtion conldined in

t,nka Rtthhi F,li!:(rtp.15:- l fhus. e\ren here-'rradrtional'philo\ophl_ is rcsittrated such thai ils slatus Is

dcrivativc.

,\ltlht

M.e-q

thtego1'

furat()i

SLI

he

p(tchirhSt

tr.jc'tl:o'tl.

T

d

S.

t:

tr

r

s

Ii

I

)

l

1

ga mbeD's

\gambcn.lther thanI The an-rm nould1. lbr thatnal recttg-comt'nuni-radition in

o its oligi-y of unor-'/r, lies thcp into. via

placenlcnta conllict\\,crc \ er)'

rld need to

-rn by Ger-rly includc:ir en a ditl)n\ entional

/)r:dl'Whatl' Agambencading of a

:ntl! s1atcd.

;ccl as u a;-s

ttatir,e con-cart bc an-

n of Ieu ishru for inter-lcsted lionttion ol' nu -a marginal-

,1() a substi-primary lir

tol one ca{e'onccPl.771('

Messictlt i.r. irt othcr vrrds. the /igttt'c through vltiL'h religion tonfionls the prohlem o/lhc Lqv, det i.s it'c l.t' rat koning rlil/r /1. (P: l6l)

One might statc Agamben's overall interpretive strategy in the lblloring manner:Mcssianisnr (and its concomitant antinonrical structure) senes as the paradigmatic category through which Aganrben's interpretation ol'Benjan'rin systcrnatically tunctions as

thc condition lbr a rnarginalized history o1' philosophica I Judaisnr. ls the status ofa cat-egory such as'antinotnical rnessianism' open to question with respecl to interpretatiollsol Benjanrin (particularlv rvith respcct to the interesting project of using Benjamin tofitnction as thc condition 1br another history of philosophical Judaisrn)'.) After an explo-ration ol Aganrben's rcadiug o1'Benjarnin's seminal theses "On thc Concept of llis-tory" (which occurs tlrroughout Agamben's many texts dealing u,ith Benjamin). I willsuggest thc alternati\c category ol'iconoclasm' (referring to the ban trn graren images.hele understootl-in its Medie\al Jeuish formulation- as a critique of theological-political representation) as a nrorc viable route through which to interpret Benjanrin'stext, insofar as it signals neithel a dognratic acceptancc o1. nor a radical rejection of'.history. This categorial substitution. I belier e. u ould also better f'acilitrte an attempt tothink about another history of philosophical Judaism. This paper $ill, theretbre. as-sume the fbllorving structurc: (l ) a brief outlinc of Aqamben's oyerall philosophicaltrajectory ($'ith emphasis on his antinomical messianism), (f) a discussion of this tra-jectory as it concretely manil'ests itself in Agambcn's interpretation ol Benjarnin's "Onthe Concept ol'Historl''. (3)the beginnings ofan alternatire iconoclastic interpretationo1'Beniamin's text. and (4) concluding suggestions conceming another way to beginthinking about a marginalized history ofphilosophical Judaism.

L Agumhen's Philosophit al TrujectorrThe prospect o1'yoking togcther Agamberr's raried and u ide-ranging theoretical inter-ests is a daunting onc. espccially giren the transfbrmations in emphasis that they un-dcrgo during difitrent periods oJ'his career (e.g.. liom Iinguistic-literary analyses tosocial-political ones). Horcver. the samc claim can be rnade about Agarnben's phi-losophical trajcctor) that Agan.rben makes (rnistake'nl}. in rnr,ricr) about Benjamin's:"the more onc analyses [it]. the more it appears . . . to bc anirnated by a rigorously sys-tematic intention".(P: 155-156) This interrtion can be illustrated via a briel' discussionregarding tbur contcnrporar\ philosophical figurcs l ho cxert a structuring inlluence onAganrben's thoughl: Marlin Heidcgger (uhosc 196(r and I968 Lc Thor senrinalsAgarrben attcrrded';. Michcl Foucault. Sinronc Weil (on uhom Agamben \\ rote a the-sis at thc University ol Rornc"l. ancl Waltcr Ben-iarnin (uhosc ('ollected ltalian Eclition

'\\rthout nrcruring lo broiich the dillicuh qucstron ol c\enri\irl nlcnr(ir\. on. is tcnlpled lo spccul:rtcthrt Aranrbcrr li\rnd a slron! ad\oeirlc lirr his antin,'rnical j|lrl]ulsc rl cerlain \lrtenrcnts nradc b1 Hcidcggerirl ihe l9()N Thor rcrninur tc g, orr .\ulru\l lo): "lhcrc ctln hc no rlrthoril\. since sc \orl iD connron. \\'c\!ork ir r)rdcrlo rcirch ti]r martcr itse li *hich rs in qucslidr Ihusrhcmrrtcr rlscll rs !h('solc irulln)ril). in

lnr\cr\it\ Prc\\.:o('-lr. l0l.fl!inril\puhlrshedrn(icnrranusJir.\trrrrrat'lLThot l96L l96li. l96t)ltjltr))]t,,l.):.1. ed..(urr()ch\\ir(11 |l:ranllirrl i r \1uin:VL orio Klosler rn|1. 1977])

"Sc': Itlanrl (l! ll l)Llrirnla\!. (iirtr,!r ly,t l',tt I (rt!kdl !trt,rt t tt,r) \Stanli,(l: Slrnli)rd Unr\ersiltI).css- lllrl9). Srn.c thr r,rnllrlrdn ol lhi\ paPcr. tlc l:r l)Lrr'antare. rcrr has cnrergerl irs thc rrosl irr-(leplhrnd Lonrl)rchcn\r!e slud\ (rl A1lrrrlbcn s thourhr. Allhoulrh I hir\c r)('1 had lirnc lo,rorsuit it tltcply. I netc+lhrlrs\ rl11)ngl] rerorrlr!r(l il r,, r!](lcr\ nlcrcsl.(l rl lhc l(,li(' eo\cred in thi( pafcr

J08 Jr fRr \ llt\\rr\

Agamben directed). Simply statcd, lleideggcr prolides the matcrials tbr the originuryerpcricnce ol" inf'ancy'. Foucault provides thc rnaterials fbr the politicrl rnallsis of'biopolitics'. Weil prol ides the inrpetus lbr the nrcssianic rctuln to inlancy (ternred'decreation'). and Bertjamin provides the antinomical practice of articulatirrg marginal-ized histories of the 'suppressed past'which nrakes the messianic return possible.

There are two reasons rvhich immediately recommend proceeding in such a

manner. First. such a procedure will thcilitate a transition to a more detailed treatmentof the fburth of these tigures lBenjarrin) in the second section of this paper. Second.this procedure highlights the importance of contemporaneity fbr Aganrben's prqect.While interpretations of'historical ligures and texts occur throughout Agamben's phi-losophical trajectory. his antinonrical tendencies lead him to tind conceptual organiza-tion within contemporary discussions uhich are sonretimes at odds with historicalanalysis (understood in its more traditional man it'estations ). For this rcason. criticism ofAgamben's historical treatments do not fully address his project. To the quite legiti-mate concern that his antinomically messianic impulse finds Iittle analogue \\'ithin therabbinic Jewish intellectual tradition (even considered in its more marginal aspects).r'rone would have lo confront the follo*ing response: any criticism of Agamben's his-torical work as unconventional simply repeats the hegemony of historical conventions.For this reason, any reflection upon Agamben's project rvill (ultimately and inevitably)find itself confronting his interpretations of contemporary thought.

Agamben's interest in Heidegger lies in the latter's thinking of Erergnls as theoriginary concealed transmissive occurrence which makes experience possible: "WithEreignis, . . . being itself is experienced as such. "( P: I 2 8 ) ln thinking this originaryoccurrence with respect to language, Agamben finds that (in the manner of the ontic-ontological difference) language fundamentally contains a potencyrr which is irreduci-ble to regionalized linguistic acts: "How can there be a language in u'hich destining isno longer withdrawn from u.hat is destined, if not in the fbrrn of a language in nhichsaying is no longer hidden in what is said, in rvhich the pure language of names nolonger decays into concrete events of speechl"(P: 132) This "pure-and itself un-transmissible-movement by which saying comes to speech"(P: 132) can be "cxperi-enced in human speech as such"(P; 132), thus allorving lor the possibility of issuing ina difi'erent ethical comportment rvhich Agamben refers to ria the category of experi-mennm linguae (i.e.. the experience that 'there is language'): "The first outcome oltheexperimentltm linguae, therefore, is a radical revision of the very idea of Community. .

. [W]hat then is the correct expression tbr the existence of language? The only possibleanswer to this question is: human life, as e/hoJ, as ethical *uy."'t Thir originary occur-rence-or, in Agamben's rvords. "transcendental experience"(IH: 52)--of dilitrentia-

r0 Ct. Ephraim E. Urbach. t/re.!irge.r. The ltbrtrl And ll'istlont Ol Thc Rtfthis Ol The Tdlnutt. tt.nns.,Israel Abrahanrs (Crmbridge: Harvard Universiry Prcss. 1987). 186-31"1. 6-19-690 (originally publishod asHo:ol. ptke enntnot v-le;r [Jerusalem: The Magnes Prcss. The Hebrcw t.lnircrsity of Jcrusalem. 1969]).

B) potency potcnrialil) . AJamben is hcre thinkine ola transccndentalcapacity for the possibilityot something's,?ot being.(see Rrmndrts tl ,1 lthtir: Tfu lritne.\ dn.! the .1khi|e (Hotto Sacer tll),lrans.. Daniel Heller-Roazen [Neu York: Zonc Books. 19991. l4f-146 loriginally published as Qut,l therc:itadi Au:(hwitz. !, anlliw e il testinon( lHuno Sa..er lllt lTurin: BollaliBoringh€ri. l9q8il).rr Ciorgio Agamben. lnfund & tlisrrtt'v: Esjats on the D.,s!nktidt,t/ EVei-i.,nr.e. trans.. l-iz l{eron(New York: Verso Flooks. 1993).9-10 (originally published as tnlun:id e r/.r.i/ (Turn: Ciulio Einaudi,1978). Hencelirrth lls (lH: page numbcr)

Ilo n

larothtollcss(

stea

mot

whiAgrniuingthision(as

anc

thean(Agreg

siccolha:'rucolriepl€

ge,ci)

nei

3lll

l9F:i'

rin

Prtlr

(\lil

e ongrnaryanalysis ofcv (termedI marginal-i ible.in such a

d treatmentcr. Second.n's project.nben's phi-rl organiza-h historicalcriticisn.t ofluite legiti-: within thel aspectsl,r"nben's his-onventions.inevitably)

lg?rs as the

;ible: "Withis originaryrf the ontic-is ineduci-destining isge in which,f names nod itself un-be "experi-

rf issuing iny of erperi-.cone of the

ommunity. .

nly possibleinaly occur'-'differentia-

l.-- puhlisherl as

ialenr. 196gll.the possibilitl

i as Qrr.'/ , /rc

8il)ms.- l-i,/ tlcrdrIirrlio Linaudi

. lltyotyLt;g!.tn|slyy.ytL .4gLtnhen \ lntet?tetulk! Ql 4!!i!!lt! s Hi!!9!.1' llllles .,-.!$9

tion between language as such and speech (which lirst initiates ethics and politics inso-

far as it "frrst opens the space of history"[lFl: 52]) Agamben terms'infancy' '' Stated

otherrvise, Aganrben locates a pure experience ol language even amidst the condition

ol inlans-i.e., not having speech. The project is thus ultirnately one of realizing the

essentially derivative and hollorv character of our current legitimizing speech and, in-

stead. entering into the experience of inl'ancy such that we might be able to achieve a

more originary ethical and political life.At this point, a ne\.\'question arises: what is the ethical and political situation in

which humanity flnds itself such that it needs 1o achieve this experimentttm linguae?Agamben has developed this issue throughout the 1990's and the turn ofthe millen-nium in lr is Homo Sac er tnlogv u

and related works (1iom its initial stages rn The Com-

ing Comnunto)'continuing uit th" *uy to The Open; Man and Animalt6), and it is at

this point that Foucault's thought becomes crucial for lrim. Foucault [1] helps to fash-

ion the distinction tbr Ancient Gteece between zoa (as natual,tiological life) and bios(as cultural 1il'e)rr. which Agamben discusses regarding Aristotle's thought (HS: 1-2),

and [2] creates the category of'biopolitics' which describes "tl're process by which' at

the threshold of the rr.todern era, natural lil-e begins to be included in the mechanisms

and calculations of State po$'er."(Hs: 3) In juxtaposing these two historical insights'Agamben argues that lhe modern period is characterized by the complete biopoliticalregulation ofzoe. (HS: 4) This. in turn. actualizes the concealed potentiality ofthe clas-

sical political category of sovereignty (HS; 6) with the inevitable outcome being the

concentration camp as the now explicit rornos of modernity (i.e., that 'exceptionality'has now. via regulation and mechanized organization, become the globalized societal'rule' ).(HS: 166- 168) ln an epoch where fact (of life) and law (as political institution)completely coincide in a "zone of indistinction"(HS: 9), the classical political catego-

ries (originally designating distinct and substantive political regions) are now com-

pfetely subsumed: "terms such as sou'ereignn', right, nqtiotl, people, democracy, and

general ttill by now ret'er to a reality that no long has an)4bing to do with what these

concepts used to designate and those who continue to use these concepts uncritically

rt ,\gamben gi\ts an analogou5 articulalion 01 lhis thoughl in ,Sl.rntdr (\\'hich is. appropriatell. dedi_

calcd 10 Hcideggcr): The origirrar) nucleus of signification is neither in the signifier nor in the signified.

ncilher in the $riting nor in ihe voice. but in the fold oflhe presence on t\hich they are established: lhe

/ogrrr, which charactcrizcs the human as xnn logon c.ro, {living thing using latguage), is this fold that

trathers and cliridcs all thines in thc putlirrg logcthcr' ol prescnce."(sce Ciorgio Agamben. Stunza\ tli)tdLnl I'h.ntu\ iinllt:ttrnCulrLue. lran5.. Ronald L. Ma inez (Minneapolis: Llniversity ofMinnesota Press.

l99l). 156 loriginallf published as Slrrrr:t Lu Purcttt ( il lAntusntt nelld Ll t ta oc.idenrdl. (Turin: Cuido

Finurdi. lq77 )l).r ln addnr,,rr ro /1,r,,,.\d.r, Sottt.ign Pover and B.rrc l.i/c, see Ciorgio Aganrben. Sl.?le of l.r.ep-

/ir)/r. trans. Kc\in Attcll (( hicago: Universil) ol Chicago Press. 1005) (originall) publishcd as t'r/o '/l|rr r':rrrrk, [-]lrin: Bollali Bor ingh icn. 20{)lj). hcnc.lorlh as (Str.: pagc nunrber) tnd R.,r/?z rlt o / Aue(ltttit:

'' Ciiorgio Agemhcn. Iht QD ittg Co tunit\. rans.- Michacl tlardt (Minneapolis: Ilni.'ersity of Min-fesola Press. 199-l) {originall} publishcd as La LoDntnita cht'r'rerrr IIunn: Cuido Einaudi. 19901). Hence-

tbrth as (( ( : page nunlbL'r).' Ciorgro Aganbelr- Tb opLn \l t a*l .4ninta|. trans.. Kcvrn Altel (Stanford: Slanford tjniversily

Prcss. l{)0,1J (origrnallt published as t. tlr.tto l. uonn t l uninalc Ihrrn] Bollati Boringhieri' 20021i

llur!!l',rlh r\ (L r. I.ir( nIrnhcr)\cc Nli.hel loue.rult. Ir, ttt\tott ol Se.trali^ llluntc t An lntrcdtdion lrans.. Robert Hurley

(N.\ York: !tftagt Books. 1980i. l'11 (originall,v- pubhshed as la Iolenri tlc sotrtu lParts: Editions Gal-

linrar(1. lq76l).

.110 Jl[Rr\ BLR\\rrr\

literally do not know what they are talking about."(MWE: 109) It is l/l"r point. in par-ticular, rvhich leads Agamben toward his antinomical slance wilh the conrplete cor-ruption 01'our political categories, therc emergcs an exigency tix a radical break rvithwhat came befbre in order to avoid an "unprecedented biopolitical catastrophe. "( H S:

188).ln the l'ace of conrplete and total biopoliticization-i.e.. nrcchanized genocide,

cnvironnrental destruction. and possiblc nuclear omnicide- -uhat could a philosophi-cal-political response possibly look like'? Certainly all tbrms of what is conventionallytermed 'realism' (i.e.. the continued pragmatic usage of acccpted philosophical-political categories) is not an option insothr as all the tools of realism have undergonebiopolitical corruption. Thus. the alternative riast be messianic i.e., it has to amountto a conplete change of stance to*ards life, thus holding out lbr the possibility of a

lirndamenlul redemption or renewal (rctaining here the sense, even if in a secularizedfbrm, of 'making all things new again') of ethics and politics. Agamben tinds this po-litically redemptive impulse, interestingly enough, in Simone Weil's term'decreation'.Weil's initial articulation ol this term might appear to militate against Agamben'sneeds: "Decreation: to make something pass into the uncreated."lt However, as is per-haps obvious, Weil does not intend by this term complete annihilation, but rath.er some-thing like an emptying of the exclusivist myth of sellhood and autonomy (whether un-derstood in terms of individuals or communities): "We must take the t'eeling of being athome into exile. We must be rooted in the absence of a place. To uproot oneself so-cially and vegetatively. To exile onesell from every earthly country . . . IB]y uprootingoneself one seeks a greater realiry."(GG: 39) Agamben juxtaposes the category of 'de-creation' with Heidegger's f/eigris (understood as the pure potentiality of language,lhe experimentum linguae) and thus takes the return to the originary experience of lan-guage to be the messianic moment of creativity (as illustrated in his essay on "Bartle-by"): "the creation that is now fulfilled is neither a re-creation nor an etemal repetition;it is. rather, a decreation in which what happened and what did not happen are returnedto their originary unity. . . while what could not have been but was becomes indistin-guishable from rvhat could have been but *as not."(P: 270)rq In short. by articulatingan ontological space lor the 'zone of indistinction' (which so plagues modern ethicaland political domains when it occurs as a result ofbiopolitical subsumption), Agambenhas [] bestorved a redemptive quality upon the originary condition of infhncy and hasthus [2] projected this originary condition into the space of hLrmanity's fulfillment.Agamben discusses this fulfillment quite differently in diflerent texts. but whether itgets articulated as pleasure ( I H: I 05 ), happiness ( MWE: 7), the capacity lbr "taking theoriginal measure of Ihuman-being's] dwelling in the present and recover[ing] each timethe meaning of his action"i". "rendering inoperative the machine which governs our

li Simone Weil. Gtrui-r' ant! Gtu.e. tr:;ns.. Etrtma Cri{ lbrd and Mario \on dcr Ruhr (Nc$ York: Rout-ledge. l99i)). 12 (originxlly published as La Pas.uteu| tt l./ grac.,LParis: Libraric PLON. l9.l7l). Hcnce-lbrlh as ((l(i: page nunrber).

D One exemplary realm ol'lit'c *here such de-crcali\e creali\rty occurs ilj in lhe rerlm of art (see(iiorgio Agamben. "Dilt'erence and Repetition: On Guy Debord s l:ilms.' in drr| Delor d .ln.l The Sit d-tit)ni.\t Intetnutionul, ed.. Tom McDonough ((ambridge: Thc MIT Press. 2004). 3llt. l{enccli)rth as (DR:page nunrberl

r" tiiorgro Auanrhcn. fh,: ll,u lluhour (.,r/crr. trans.. Ceorgia Albe( (Slantbrd: Stanli)rd tjni\,ersityPress. 1999), 1 1,1 (origrnrlly published as L tttmt sen:u tntkar,/., JQuodliber. 199-tl).

concrli)r thbetwr0therocc ulappr(zatiocallsocculr.rps ur

an inteleoteleo(itseltics.histomustenlerofmedgeicontactivdocsterrnatem

onlywhalthe t\\oelmedr

fi lls."whconsapprher

the I

beha

tlo()k

Book

Mess

)int. in par-nrplete cor-break with

-ophe."(HS:

d genocide.philosophi-rventionallyilosophical-: undergones to amountsibility of asecularized

rrds this po-decreation'.Agamben's

:r. as is per-rather sorrs-rvhetlrer un-r o1'being atI oneself so-

ly uprooting.gory of 'de-

of language.ience of lan-/ on "Bartle-al repetition;are returned

mes indistin-/ articulalingrdern ethicaln), Agambenancy and has

i t'ulflllment.ut u hether it)r "taking therg] each tinregoverns our

le\\ \'orkr ltoul-. I9l7l). tlcnce-

rcclirnh as (l)R:

nlo(i t- ni\ crsitj

Anti ,ni&l ,\lar\iunisnt: Agunthcn '; lncrytrakrti(n o/ B('njantin .r 'Tlr.von lir,rcr .1ll

conceptioll of man"(0: 38), attempting to uard off"global civil war"(SE: 87). allowingfor the occurrence of lifeas"pure medialit)"'(MWE: I l6). participating in thc "struggle

between the State and the non-State (humanity)"(CC: 84). or "finding the path of an-other politics. of another body, of another u'ord"(MWE: l3ti) such I'ulfillnrent alxznrsoccurs as an archaic projection which exceeds the pale of the present and its currentappropriation of history: "[T]he arrival of posthistory necessarily entails the reactuali-zation of the prehistorical threshold at which that border had been defined. Paradisecalls Eden back into question."(O: 2llrr Stated differently, Agamben's thinking alwaysoccurs on the hither side of Benjaminian 'no\\Ltime' (Jet:t:eit) in his anticipating theupsurgence of imminent futurity (even when such futurity simultancously amounts toan immemorial past). Hence. while his thinking constitutes a challenge to conventionalteleological forms of thoughr. it remains (by virtue ol'its messianism) structured by a

teleological hope. One sees this clearly in Agamben's definition of 'nessianic history'(itselfa paradoxical category): "Messianic history is defined by two major characteris-tics. First. it is a history ofsalvation: something must be saved. But it is also a finalhistory, an eschatological history, in which something musl be completed. judged. Itmust happen here. but in another time: it musl leave chronology behind. but rvithoutentering some other world."(DR: 314) In other rvords, the enactment and culminationof'messianic history is lrr the world. but not (t it. Therefore. while Agamben acknowl-edges that such messianic history is incalculable (a major aspect of Medieval Jeuishiconoclasm), such incalculability would not necessarily hinder the waiting (and evenactive preparation) for the arrival/onset of messianic history. In this uay, although itdoes not simply belong to an ahistorical/atemporal realm.'the messianic' is (in theterms ol Benjamin's Theologi< ol-Pr,tlitk al Frqgment) "a decisive category of its ltheatemporal realm'sl quietest approach."--

But if humanity is thus regulated by the biopolitical nontos of the camp, and theonly way to envision a change is by a wholesale rejection of the priority of larv as such,what ways/tools exist which could possibly bring this change about? Put diff'erently (inthe terms refemed to by the second epigram), how can hunran thought move lrom itswoefully conditioned status to a moment of unconditionality'l What rvould serve as themcdiation between the two? For Agamben, this is the role that Benjamin's thought ful-fills. In thesis l7 o1'Benjamin's "On the Concept o1'History". Bcnjamin states that"Where thinking suddenly stops in a constellation pregnart with tensions. it gives thatcorstellation a shock, by which it crystallizes into a monad. The historical materialistapproaches a historical object only whcre he encounters it as a nronad. ln this structure.hc recognizes the indicatiou (Zeichen) ol'a Messianic standstill ol events i/nrc.!sl-ani.schen Still.stcllung dts Gesc hehet?.!/. or. put diflbrently. a revolutionary chance inthe light lin thc suppressed pasl.":r Agamben understands this project o1''fighting onbchalfol'the suppressed past'as ultinrately rcl'erring to thc originary'as such'ol'in-

:' ln this sensc. lam in.sreenrenr \irh Cuthcrine Milts a(rcllation ol Aganhcn s nessranic nronrentas amounllng to dn ilntinonlicirl 'lilc li\cd belond the rcreh ol the la\\." Sec Calhcline Mills. Agamhcn s

Nlcssjanic I,('litics: lliofolilies. Ahan(lorlnrert. nd Happ\ L-rii'. (i,,rrrl./r/)\ 5. l)ccenrbcr ll){).+.49.'_ \!allcr llcn]anrin. Rt,lltrtur'..d.- Pctcr Demct/. lrans. ldNon(i jcphcotl (Ne$ \orl: Schockc'n

Books. 1978i.IIl. (cssa) orirrnall\'tuhlished n IIlut tn.ttitnknl:' Wahcr Benianrin. tttMtlin,ltion\. ed Ilannrh Arendl. tflrns.. ilarr] Zohn lNr\ \'ork: SchockenIlo()ks. ft)()l). 16l'l{,-1: rrallslaii(nr nrodilicd. (originall\ publrshcd as ]lh ni dtit)nu .1u\g.\lihlk Sdril'/r, 1 llrranllirrl irnr lvirin:Suhrkalnp Vcrlag. l()7il). llclecli)rlb as {1i pagc nunhcr).

ll2 lrHRlY BrR\\ Ir\

tbncy. This is nol to suggest that hun.unity can. fbr Agambcn. cr et sinrply dwell in the

origin as a pure ra,?c r-;;r. Horvever' insofhr as inlhncy (no' unclersto'tl as the rnessi-

unii trltilln-'.n, .,1'history) can lbrm and inlbrm our experiencc ol lil'e- it can r/ct t Eate

ou, port ,rnr*'.tt Agambin states tlut "For Benjamin. u hat is at issue is an intcrruption

of tiadition in whiih thc past is tirlfillsd and thereby broLrght to its end once and tbr

all.'1P: 153) In other rvords, Agamben invests Benlamin's thought with a radically an-

tinomcial capacity which holdj out the possibility via historical rnaterialism and by

virtue of unlocking the concealetl pouer-of nlarginaliled histories of attuning people

to the decreated in-fancy of humani'nd :5 For Aganrben. phrlosophical Judaism- via a

rnarginalized reading oi'passages trom the Talmud. Midrash. Kabbalah' and Shabbatai

Seui-is but one uiy to give expression and attunement to this antinontically rnessi-

anic power of decreation.

II. Agamben's In\erprel(ttion ol Benjdmin's l'listot1'" Theses

What does it mean to suggest. as Agamben has. that Benjanlin's thought is 'animated

by a rigorously .ytt..uii" intention'? If one returns to Agambcn's statement cited

u6ou" u-nd, this time, lills in two ellipses (omitted simply tbr reasons of space)' hints ofan answer begin to emerge: "The more one analyzes Benjamin's thought' the more it

upp"urr-rorlrrry to ct common impre.tsion-...to be animated by a-rigorously systematic

intention /as Benianitt ctnce w'oti rtJ another philosopher u;uall.t' thougltt to he fi'ag-

mentary, Friedrich Schtegell.(P: 155-156: my emphasis) The systematicity ot'Benja-

min's intention is here placed in opposition to those conventional interpretations (i.e..

'common impressions') which read him as ultimately expressing (in form and contenl)

fragmentation. One might undentand the 'common impression' of fiagmentation in

Beijamin to refer to (among others) Theodor Adorno when he states that: "[Benja-

min:sl philosophy of tiagmentation remained itself fragmentary. the victinl perhaps. ofa meth;d, the i'easibility of which in the medium ofthought must remain an opcn ques-

tion."r6 What, tbr Agamben. is the rveakness of such a reading? Only a thinking rvhich

is oriented toward thi .as such' stands a chance in breaking rvith the current order inso-

t'ar as the .as such' constitutes the identi/itution of both origin and I'ultillment with re-

spect to human life. And given that \\'hat is at issuc is an articulation and experience ofthis 'identi4ring as such" systematicity would have to entail at least a certain amount

of consisteicfind cttltuc'it1: jbr theorcticcrl elahort lior precisely the t$'o characteris-

tics that fiagmentation denies. Fragmentation (understood as an anti- or nonmessianic

mode of thirght/life) ',vould u*ount to nothing more than quietism in the facc of bio-

political subsurnption: "lf we drop the messianic theme and only locus on the moment

of foundation and origin--or even the absence thereof (which amounts to the same

thingfwe are left u'iih empty, zero-degree' signification and rvith history as its infi-

nite-def'erment."(TR: 104) Aence. Adomo's 'lragmented Benjamin'-and' in fhct, all

ti I "* h.r. articulating somelhing similar to \hat Lcland Dcladuranhye dcnotes in lhe Phrase "r€-

nlembering thal which neve:r happcnerli. see Leland Deladurrntaye. Agambcrl s Po(cniial". in 1)izr-iri{tsummer 2000. .10.2. 18.ljiu.h u,I"","ot"d inlancy would. in tacl ltbr Agambcn). place thc \er\ categories of human'rnd'non-human' in a zone ol indisiinction thus illustrating the Shabbal ol both annnaland man"(O:92)

16 Thcodor Adorno. -A ponail ol-walter Benjamin... in a.i.\rrr. rrJns.. Samcl and Shicrr! wcbef (( unr-

bridge: The MII Press. 1990).:39 (originally published as ta ': .,en: K ttu tilik tortl Gtscll;chuli LBerlin:

Suhrkanlp. 19551). Henceli)rth as (Pr: page numbcr)

()L'\'tcler

cisnrscnta llcsuchthis r

Lanltendtirctl

givct ion'terr'l'llc:slanlmylsyntgutrin tlbecu hi,orelor,'gorlBcngLn

'I ic"d

li()ll.Thcscago

e\plchli(

rhrrelatis elNlcs

lishtl9t)

MatUnrnli

lwell in the; the messi-zn decre0lt,interruptionnce and fbradicaJly an-ism and byning peoplerism-via a

d Shabbatar:ally messi-

s 'animatedement citedce ). hints ofthe morc it

v systemalicr to be .lj ug-ty of Benja-tations ( i.e..rnd contcnt)nentation inat: "[Benja-. perhaps. ol'r open ques-nking u'hicht order inso-rent with re-xperience o1'

lain anroLlntcharacteris-

,onmessianicl'ace of bio-thc momcnlto the sanrey as its infi-I, in l'act. nll

thr phrasr "r'f

ol htman ln(l'iO: 9l)

//.(r)ry'i lltcrlin:

ofAdorno's thinking renains (in the language ol the lirrguist Berlamin Lee Whorl) "'teleologicalfly] inefltctive' ".(TR: 38) That Adorno uould not \ ie\\' this to be a criti-cism (but rather" precisely the point) of his thought is a topic well in excess ofthe pre-

sent paper. Here. the Foint to be discerned is that Agambcn's 'systematic Benjanrin' is

a Benjamin full of potentiality. messianically directed. and one uho indicatcs the 'assuch' origin/fulli llment whichinvests thoughi, language and (ultinutely) lilc.rr To givethis interpretation to some of Benjamin's early Ronrantic-influenced u'ritings (e.9.. "OnLanguage as Such and on the Language of Man") is relatively unproblematic. To ex-tend such an interpretation to his later historically materialist works (let alone the en-tireq ol-tsenjamin's corpus) is indeed a bold move.

On the face of it. Agamben's reading of the *Hisbry"' thescs appears pronrisinggiven Benjamin's continued usage ofthe terms messianic' (and. similarly. 'redemp-

iion'.1. Hoivever. the mere ris,rgc of terms (pa('c Jacob Taubesr*) cannot. b)' itsell'de-terminc ho$ to interpret a philosopher's thought. If Benjamin equates (in thesis l7)'messianic' uith 'revolutionary chance', then ever)4hing hinges Ltpon hou'one under-stands 'revolution'-i.e .. the relation olthe 'now-time' 1tl one's past. ll I am correst inmy suggestion that .Agamben understands the category ol"the past' in the light ol'hissynthesis of Heidegger's Er?lgl?is (understood in the nranner ol'lhe e\pcrientun litl-guae) and Weil's'decrcation'. then 'revolution' u'ould amount to a break with historyin the fbrm of a re-nev-ittg return lo an immemorial past. Hence, 'rerolution' rvouldbe cast in a distinctly antinomical light. This is, to be sure, onc decisive manner inwhich to understand'revolution': whether it is the manner in which thinkels like Marx.or even Paul, understood it is a subject still $orthy ofquestion.:'It does. houever. al-low Agamben the requisite space in order to develop an antinomically structured cate-gory ol-'messianic' within the context of Benjarrin's thought. Dillerently stated. theBenjaminian 'suppressed past' refers (fbr Agamben) io the originary experience of'lan-guage as sacfi. ln this case, the category'messianic' would suggest not merely a soclal

t At indicatccl nbovc. Adomo is not the onll interprcl.r ol Benjnnrirr to enphasis liagrnentali(rn. RolfTiedemann holds that Benjanrin's 'llistory" thcses rarel) pernil a complctell eonsi\tent inlcrprela-tion._(scc Roll_ Iicdemann. Historical Malerirlrsnr Or I'olrtical \4cssianrsnr'l An lnlerprclalion Ol 'fhc

The.es On The ( oncepl ol Histo(.\". it:' Bctti.uitin Phiir'\o t.t .1!\1l1ttk '. Hi'tu|.t. ed.. (jrD Smith lChi'cago: ttnirersin ol Chicag(i Press. lq89l). l0-1. Similarl!. according to Rrincr Rochlil,/. Bcnjarrin composed thc "Hislorv thcscs so as to scc clearly into his own thnking. hut the) did not ycl allow him loexplarn his thought to others. Nor can the) ser\c as a basis lbr a lhcorctical elaboralion. (see Raillcr llo-chlit./. Thr Dtsukhuntnttir Ol .1fl: 7fu Phih*t1thr Ol llulkt Be,t,r n. tra[s.. Janc N'laric Todd l\c\\ urk Thc auilri'rd Prc\,. l'rt,,'1. llh)

" \\ ith rc\necr Lo Bcn;.rnrrr'' first 'cnlencc it hi; TlntlogiL, -l\tliliLdl Itdgtunt stirlirtg lhal '()nl)lhc \4cssiih hinrsclf consunrmales all historr. rr lhe sensc thal hc llore redccrns. conrplelcs- crcrlL': its

relatior lo the McssiaIic . Trubcs maLcs the lbll(tr\rng (lirrl\ rniornrill)conrnrcnt: It'lirsl ol all. onc lhingrs clcur: Thcre is a Messiah. No shnl(mlsos lil.rc lhc mcssrarrc. -thc politicill. no neulrrlir trt}n. hLrt lheMcssiah \! c h r r c t o be c lcu r about lhis. Nol thrl \e .rre'derling hcrc t\ith a (hri\li.rn Mcssiah. bul il docs

sa,r:rhc \1cs'iuh. No cloud\ hliqhlcnmcnl or Ilonranlic ncutrali,/rliorr."(scc.lircob Taub,:s. fh( h)lili(dlThcohryt {)[ I'tul. tr.rns.. IXna ]lollandcr (Slanli)rd: Slinli'rd (lni\ersrl\ Prc\(. lo0{). ?l roriginalll pub-

lishcd as /)rc hlur fu "l ht:t)h'ri! ,l( r /'rrrrlrrr cds.. Alcidr ancl J.rn Assrrrir|- ct:rl l\\ilhclrn Fink Vcrlag.l99ll). ll(N\c\er. eren in Lhis prcsunrabll cleirr corrlc\1. lleatrng tlcrt.lmin s :litlcmcnl \\ilh an itrnic ot'

.,'rrJitr.'rrrl t,'rrr' rlrr:rrn. rr rcrr' n.''.ihrlitrt'Iix un inrcre.trng discrrssion in \upporl ol undcrslrnding r!\olLrtion u\ a lorrn ot rcpelilion. se.

Lnrrersrrr Prcss. l0(Xr). 159-l(':. l1)r,\garrhcn. repetitiorr ill$ays a11,,$s lar lhr llnmarrerl Lrpsurgc ol lhcanlir,'rr1r!rll\ r!\\riinic tcll t)rlltrcncc rrrd Itcpclilion: {)rr(,o\ I)ch()rd \ Irihrrs l

3t4 .'r ll rr \ l]r R\s r\

.utd politicul reconliguration. bLrt rather a conrplete change ol stance b\ard lil'c rndthe promise ofa fundamental renerval (iusolar as hutnanity would brcak rvith the rle-rivative. and open a path to an originary. experience of languaqc). Put ditf'crcntly.'nressianic' ( tbr Aganrben) re fbrs to an ulologicul rcgisler. This understanding of 'the

past'as an immemorial 'as such' is precisely uhcre the iconoclastic intcrprctation ofthe "tlistorv" thcscs s ill direrge liom Agambcn's o$'n interpretation.

Agamben's interpretation of"On the Concept ofllistory" fbcuses on theses l. 3,5 IJ.9. l4 and lll. The rernainder ol'this scction will comprise a discussion ofAgam-ben's antinomically messianic interpretation ol these theses.

Benjarnin sets the stakcs vcry high in thesis 2 uhcn hc states that "our image ofhappiness is indissolubly bound up u ith the image ol redemption. The same applies toour vieu ol the past, u,hich is the conccrn of history. The pasl carries with it a secretlheimli< hen index by rvhich it is relerrcd to rcdemption . . . Like cvery generation thatpreceded us. we have been endowed with a rr,crrk messianic power, a power to whichour past has a claim."(l: 254; translation modified) Agambcn tlrst notes that the wordErlosung (redenption) is the term which Luther uses (in his translation of the NewTestament) to render the Pauline.rpoAtrosi.r (TR: l.+4). thus suggesting a hitherto unat-tended to connection betlveen Benjamin's thought and Paul's. Redemption. here. is thecategory which functions. tbr Agamben. as the gravitational center of Benjamin'sviews regarding the philosophy of history.(P: 139) Hence, despite his materialism,Benjamin is articulating a messianic impulse so much so. in t'act, that (according toAgamben) Benjamin's thought can understand human happiness only insofar as suchhappiness has reckoned u,ith its being bound to the idea of redemption.(P: l5l) Andsuch historical redemption is itself intimately bound up with (in fact, inseparable from)the capacity lor'citability'-i.e., the ability to "tear rhe past tiom its context, destroy-ing it. in order to return it, transfigured to its origin."(P: 152) Thus, the relation ofhis-torical materialism to the past is purely antinomical: the task (qua redenrptive citabil-ity) is to tear thc 'as such' of the past from its encrustation in history so that it might bereturned to us anew (and so that we might retum ane$ to inlbncy). Here. the traditionalnomic aspect of history is understood as old and constricting, while the 'origin' theimmemorial past of language as such-remains (qua messianic redemption) ever new.Tradition, in other rvords, is valuable orr11, insofar as it can "lead fthe past] to its declinein a context in r.r'hich past and present, content ol transmission and act ot' transmiss ion,rvhat is unique and uhat is repeatable are rvholly identified."(P: 153) Redemption, forAgamben's Benjamin, is not a pure and sirnple liquidation of the past (P: 154)-it is,father, its decreation. Agamben notes that. in Ihe Harulexemplar.of thesis 2. the term'weak' (in 'weak messianic power') is given extra emphasis. and this (for Agamben)provides the key both for ( | ) understanding how this decreative capacity happens andtbr (?) pror,iding Benjanrin's o\^n texr \rirh citability. Like Paul (in Corinthians l2: 9-l0), Benjamin is refening to a capacity or power which "f'ulfills itsell' in its weak-ness."(TR: 140)Again. Luther's translation fbr ",veakness' in Paul conesponds to Ben-jamin's-sc/rruche. (TR: 140) Our authentic relation to the past is not one ol simpleand direct progress towards firlfillment (which would be one way ol' understanding a'strong' messianic power) but, instead, that of rcleasing (via decreation) the possibili-ties of the e.tpetimentu llngrrrc concealed in the inrmenrorial past. [D this way,Agan.rben believes that it is ultimately Paul who both renders Bcnjarnin's text cit-

a bltu l'urlralLlntr

arrclec

citzthenot-fo

the

sitotlim(mtue

Hrbe

onA1

orSC

mtn,

s/,

tirnist

SI

u

II

on

I

b

r

il

rd life andirh the de-lifferently,ing ot' '1he

'retation ol

heses 2, 3"

of Agam-

Lr image of: applies toit a secret

rration that:r to whichrt the wordrf the Newherto unat-here, is the3cnjamin'sralerialism.:cording tofar as such: l5l) Andrable from)xt, destroy-tion of his-:ive citabil-it might be

) traditional

'rigin'-the) ever new.) its declinelnsmission,rnption. fbr15,1)r-ir is,

2. the termAgamben)

rappens andrians l2: 9-

n its weak-

'nds to llen-,e o1' sirnple:rstanding a

re possibili-n this way.r's text cit-

ll5

able/intelligible (and vice versa), and who functions as the 'theological hunchback'

who guides the puppet 'historical materialism' (in thesis I ).(TR: l4l ) Hence, historicalmaterialism is. at bottom, intimately connected with a Pauline trajectory (which amo-

unls to being, for Agamben, antinomically messianic).

Civen that (tbr Agamben's Benjamin) humankind's decreative retum to the e.{-

peimentLtm linguae happens via citability, thesis 3 gains enormous significance: "onlya redeemed mankind receives the fullness of its past which is to say, only for a re-

deemed mankind has its past become citable in all its moments."(l: 254) For Agamben,

citability (i.e., received fullness olthe past) equals possession ofthe past.(P: l5l) Only

then will hurnankind be "tluly redeemed and truly saved."(P: l5l) Possession. here' is

not simply reducible to intelligibility (at least not in its conventionally passive sense).

To be in possession of a past means to be able to experience the potency contained in

the past. Hence, citability is a lnrd ol intelligibility, but one which is, in its very intelli-gibli occurrence, creative. Put difl'erently. Agamben's Benjamin is attempting to hold

out a promise for a rvay of lile in which humanity's constructive capacities are not im-mobilized. Decreating anew amounts to intelligible construction which occurs in/as the

messianic reception of humanity's past: "what is saved is what never was. something

new. This is the sense ofthe 'transfltguration' that takes place in the origin."(P: 158)

Humanify's being in full possession of its past amounts to the complete coincidence

between the actuality olhumanity and the originary potency ofinfancy (P: 159)

If citability is a (or even lh4 coruete expression of messianic decreation, then

one has the right to inquire into how exactly such citabilityheception can occur. For

Agamben, Benjamin begins to answer this question in thesis 5:"The past can be seized

only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never

seen again."([: 255) As stated earlier, the category ol'the past', for Agamben's Benja-

min, refers to the originarily immemorial experience of language as such-the erperl-mentun linEiuae. Given that this immemorial past does not simply an.rount to a rurcs/drJ but, rather, an occurrence in the world (if not completely o/ it). there is a sense inwhich the past remains irredeemable (for Agamben)-i e., "[w]at cannot be saved is

r,r'hat was"iP; 158) However. the image of the past brings about redemptive recogni-

tion idat the very heart ofthe unredeemable.( P: 157) Redemption. experiential recog-

nition of the potency ol language, would thus coincide with language in its actual in-

stantiation. In more traditional terminology, one might say that such coincidence con-

stitutes a fbrm of incamation i.e.. it is this disclosure ofthe redeerning potenlial in the

unredeemed actual which constitutes the messianic 'weakness' of Agamben's Benja-

min. "Bild finrage] thus encon']passes, for Benjamin, all things (meaning all objects,

u'orks of an, te)its, records or documents) wherein an instant of the past ard an instant

of the present are united in a L-onstellatjon where the present is able to recognize the

meaning of the past and thc past therefore finds its meaning and fulfillment."(TR:I42)r'r This unity (or, in Benjamin's terms'standstill') olthe dialectical image resem-

bles (according to Aganlben) the 'typological relation' in Paul.(TR: 142) Similarly.

l" I',r"r"rtingly. Agamben s mcssianic interprelati(m ol this lbesis tirlds unexPcclcd supporl nr Jiirgell

llaberutas o\n irrtcrprctali,)n. $hich errphcsizcs this coinciclerrcc as a conrnrunicalivc conlc\t ol a univcr'srl hislorical soli<lariry.l.tiirgcn llabennas. ?J?(, PhilosothiLul I-)iscorttt d .\h Lr'rit.t: Tttrl\'( LedMe\.

trans.. Frederick c. l-a*renc:e [t-anrbridgc: The MII-Press. 1990]. l5 (originallr published as De''lii'rs'r-phi:thr l)rskurt Lltr \h"tLr ( 7,\\ill Iir-lr.\rrg.rI Ifranklirrt arrr N4ain: SuhrLanrp Verlag l9li5]l

-l 16 J| rRl Y IJr k\\ rl L\

Aganrbcn notcs that thc ljrst sentence ol thcsis 5 (i.c.. the true in.ragc ol'thc last lleesby lnright bc a relcrcnce to (orinthians 7: il.(l-R: l.l2)Oncc again. the rnessianicthnrst ol'Benjarlin's thougirt is decrcationally correlatcd u,i1h the texts ul'Paul.

What. concrctcly, does the rccognition o1'this clccreatir'c recognition ot the past

accomplishl In thesis E. Benjanrin notes that "The traclition ol the suppresscd teachesus lhat the 'state ol'cmergency' in which we lire is not the cxccption but the rule. Werlust attain to a conception ol'history that is in keeping u'ith this insight . . . lllt is ourtask to brirrg abotl u reul .,;tutc of entergetr'.t, and this rill inrprovc orrr position in thestluggle against Fascisnr."(l: 257: cnrphasis mine) According to Agamben. Ilenjaminhere establishcs a rclation betucen tlte conccpt ol messianic tirne'(i.c.. the contractiollof lime disclosed to humanity during a moment ol crisis f-l R: 63-651) and "a juridicalcatcgory belong[ing] to the sphere of public las.'11,: l6tl) ln rhis accomplishmenr,Bcnjamin conlionts the realm oflarv as such with the category ol"the rncssianic' ,i.e.,he "brings a genuine messianic tradirion to the most e\trcmc point ol its deiclop-nrent."(P: 162) In olher rvords. in heightening the tension bctween law as such and 'themessianic'. Bcnjamin adrances the project (through the creation olmarginalized histo-ries.1 of bringing about a 'real state of emergency' in the lbrm ol'an antinotnical con-lrontation with the hope ol interrupting th.' priority of legality. Agarnben states that,"We can compare the siruation ol our time to that of a petritied or paralyzed messian-ism that, like all messianisrns. nullifies thc law, but then maintains it as rhc Nothing ofRevclation in a perpetual and interminable state of cxception."(P: l7l)The relationbet*een messianism and legality is in a suspended state calling lbr a firll and decisiveconliontation which might provide. via Benjamin's thought. an opening lbr decreativeinfbncy. Not surprisingly. for Agamben, "Only in this context do Benjamin's thesesacquire their proper meaning"(P: l7l; insolar as "[t]his paradigm [i.e., the'state ofexception'l is the only way in uhich one can conceiye something like an eskhotonthat is. something that belongs to historical time and its la* and. irt thc same time, putsan end to it."(P: 174) The heightening olthe confiontation betucen lau'and messian-isrn (via the dialectical image) thus holds out. firr Agamben, the very real possibility ofdisclosing the emptiness ollaw as such.

There has becn an extended dcbate surrounding thesis 9 (Benjamin's most ccle-brated thesis) concerning the possible optimism or pessimism contained in the figure ofthe angel ol history who "[w]here rve perceive a chain of events. . . . sees one singlecatastrophe u,hich keeps piling u.reckage upon $reckage".(l: 257)The notable pessi-nristic reading {according to Agamben) is Gershom Scholem's "Walter Benjamin andHis Angcl". " Agarnben. rn sharp contrast, holds that the li,sure of thc angel is rather"the cipher by which Ilenjamin registered what rvas for him humankind's most difllculthistorical task and rnost perf'ect experience of happincss. "( P: 14ti) ln the light of catas-trophic attenlpts at making 'historical progrcss'. which have only scrved to alienatehumanity fronr its or.iginary infbncy. the angel is thc figure (i.e.. the dialectical image)rvhich 1in manif-esring recognition ol'the situation) illustrates the need fbr an historicalrupture and mcssianic re-integratior: "thc angcl is tlre originary imagc in the Iikcnessofrvhich man is crc'ated arrd. at the same time. the consunlnation ofthc historical total-ity ol r.'xistence tllat is accomplished on the last day. such that in its ligure origin and

ii lun.J"d in (iershonr Scholcm. (r, .t.!t\ dn.t J.tubnt ar {iivr. ed.. \\emcr L)3nDh:ru\cr (NewYork Schocken Books. 1976). l9ij-l-16.

cndalsttthc i

ol p

n't i,it

cnrplled

Plis,c irlel6lBcncitarelahistfigrdel:ciruing!^Of

n0trvhon(methetortnebaltin'iclic

l'r

:fl-.

re last flees: messianicrul.()f the past

sed teacheshe rule. We. []t is our;ition in thcr, Benjamincontraction"a juridicalnplishment,ianic'-i.e..ts develop-rch and 'theLlized histo-;rnical con-states that,

ed messian-Nothing of

-he relation.nd decisiver decreativerin's theseshe'state ofesklrcton--

e time, puts

rd messian-ossibility of

i most cele-he figure olr one singletable pessi-rnjamin and

Iel is ratherost dilflcultrht of catas-to alienate

tical image)rn hislorical:he likenessorical total-: origin and

end coincide. Likewise, the reduction to the origin that takes place in redenption is

also the consummation of historical totality."(P: 157) Differently stated. the angel is

the image of tlre coincidence o1'origin and telos which. in recognizing the catastrophe

01'progress, simultaneously consliiutes an altenratiYc, Far from being a sign of pessi-

mism. then. the angel (for Agamben's Benjamin) is a sign ol'ultimate hope

Thesis l4 ("History is the object whose place is formed not in honrogeneous,empty time. but in that which is tilled by lhe now [Jet.t.eit]."11: 261; ranslation modi-fiedl) and thesis I 8 ("The now [Jetztzeit], which, as a model of messianic time com-prises a monstrous fungeheuerenl abridgment of the entire history of hurnanity, coin-cides exactly with the figLrre which the hislory of mankind makes in the universe."Il:263: translation nrodified]) bring home, for Agamben. the ultimate connection between

Benjamin and Paul. Agamben underslands the BenJaminidn Jct:t:eit as alnountin[: lo a

citation of the Pauline ho nyn kotro.s.\Tk l4J1'--i.c.. cyclrcal time. Similarly, the

relation between the Jelztzeit as a nrodel of messianic time and the 'figure \1hich the

history of hun.ranity makes in the universe' is itsel/ (on Agamben's terms) a re-

figuration ofPaul's intertwining of rypos and anakephaloiosis (recapitulation; u'hichdefine messianic time.(TR: 142) The Messiah's anival is incalculable precisely be-

cause an) Jel:tzeil might constitute the moment of such a return. The possible coincid-ing with decreative int'ancy is rot subject to prediction but. instead, only to persevering

comportment attuned to the crisis in which we live.But while Agamben readily acknowledges that thc messianic retu to irlancy is

not calculable, his acknowledgement in no way amounts to an iconoclastic impulse; forwhile there can be no prediction, there can still be pteparation (however minimallyone construes this term) via bringing about a 'real state of emergency' in the form ofmessianic-legaiistic confrontation. In rejecting modern teleological models ol history,the incalculability of the messianic constitutes, for Agamben- a real opposition to his-

tory. authority, and law. By interpreting'the past' (in Benjamin's thinking) as an im-memorial repository of language as such in its originary potency, Agambcn counter-balances legality willl a positive vision of what might be. ln this sense^ Agamben's op-

timism is the reverse-side of Scholem's alleged pessimism. Insofar as the category of'iconoclasm' breaks with the category of'as such'. it can also be understood to diverge

from the opposition betueen optimisur/pessimisrn (hope/despair).

M. Totrards an lconoclastit Inlerprelation ttf lhe "Histrnt" Theses

The materialist longing to grasp thc natter aims al the oppositc [ol'the idea]ist]: it is only inthe absence of images that the f'ull object could be thouBht. Such absence of images cotr-

lerges with thc theological ban on images. Materialism secularized thc ban bl not penllit-ting ubpia to bc posiLirely imagined; this is the content ol'iN n.gu,iti,!

,n.,non, ouurno,,

': For a reicclion ofthis vie$. cl. l\lichacl Lii}y. ! it( {laml. Rrdding hi t?r Btlliutnn s Ou ttu Crut'

Lel ol tii\td.\ trans. (hris l urn!'r (Ne\\ Yorkl Vlrrso. 2005.1:l'1n l6l (originall) publishes 1s ,';,c/-Buidnin. .4\ttti\r(nrnt d inrctklic lParis Pre\ses Unitersilaires de l:larrcc. 20illll l{encefbrth as (FAi

pagc nurnber)" Theodor Adorno. Nerzti\r Ditllt'ttt.s. lrins.. F.. [']. Ashor (Ne$ York: (ontirrutrm Books.200l).

l{)?: translxtion modiliecl (orrgrnall,r pubhshed as \..totli| l)idl?ktik lFr.rnklirfl am Maini Suhrkamp

l99ll)

.118 .L r I.Rl \ B[R\'ltl\

The nraturity ol . . . lalc rvotks . . . docs not rcscurblc thc kind one linds irr tiirit lhe.v- are,

lbr thc llx)st pan. not round. bttl lirro$cd. crctt rarauecl De\oid oi sweclness' hitlcr and

spiny. they do not surrcnder lhcnrsclres to mtrc dclcctirtion . . . I llhcl shott ntorc traccs ofhist.rl than tlfgro* th

'hcodor.\donro'j

If sonrconc pror.luces "coLtntcrrc\1)luti(nlary" rr ritings, . . . shoulcl hc llso cxprcssll plirce

theln rt thc disposal ol the countcrre\oluliorl.'Slrotrld hc nol ralher. denature thcn. likeethyl tlcohol. and make them dellniti\cl)'and rcliabll unusublc li)r th. counlene\ olution atthe risk that no one rvill br-'able lo usc theml Can one cvcr bc too clearly distinguishedliom the pronounccmcnts and the langtnge ol peoplc *hom one learns nore and morc toavoid in lilel

\\ aher llentanrin to Gebhom Scholcor. Apnl llj

The conventional interpretation conceming iconoclasm. u hen it is not simply under-stood as the pure content of a larv, holds thal the ban on gira!en images titnctions as a

way in which communal power becrrmes historically consolidated in Judaism (i.e., viaa polemical act of se lf detinition )." On this basis. Judaic iconoclasm gets challenged inone of two ways: either. so the argument goes, the original ban on graven images (as itis fbrmulated in the Hebrew Scriplures and interpreted by the Talmudic rabbis) does

not refer to representation bLrt specifically k) idolatry (in the litelat sense).] or is a

symptom of something llke t'alse consciousness insofar as later Jewish thinken putforth clear and definite aesthetic criteria (thus. in rr certuin sense, transgressing againsttheir own prohibition).r8

lf reflections upon iconoclasm $ere to end at this point. one might counter theabove interpretation quite easily in a manner sympathetic to Aganrben's thought: thisban, which separates language and image.tiom thing\. conceals the linguistic fhct(about which some have made a great d!'al'-) thar the Hebre* $ord ddt4r mcans both

'' Theodor '\,lonx,. _Lrtc Style in Elcclho\cr. 1r0ns.- Susan H. Cillespic. in Theodor Adomo rlt.ld-vs

On lhljiL, ed.. Richard Lepper! ( B.rk€ley: Uni\crsiiy ol Catili)rnia Prcss. 2(X)l ). i6.1.

'5 Contained in Ccrshorn Scholcm. tt;/r?r- Bc,/i/l] nin. Tht Storr O/ .1 liicn.l\hQ,lrans.. llarry Zohn(No\ \'orki \en York Revic's Oa Books. 100-]). :91. (orieinirll\ pLrblishcd as llalret &njLttnin ,lie Ge'\Lhi.11te 4net Ii L\tnLlsr,a/i l!rranktln anr Main: Suhrkrmp Vcrlag. :001 l).

16 t l.. lan Assrran. Relit:hn an C tttrat lt?nru'\' Ten Stu.li.:\. t.ans.. Rodnc) Li\ingstone (Stanlbrd:

Sranldrd Uni\,ersity Prcss, l(X)6). 77-80 {originall)- published as Rc/4qrr,r unl kulrurells Gedtichrnis lunn'.hcn: Verl.r! C H. Bc(l oHC.:0001).

' Ctl. Jcan-Luc \Jnc!. fr. nr'unJ ol tlr /nrd.gr', trans.. Jell Fort (\e\\ \-ork: lirrdhnm Uni\crsilyPress.l0{)5). i0.

'*Ctl.KaloranP. Itlantl.The.t e:it.J n ll,tliewtl ant llolern.lflirnuriotts and Dcnia^ dtheIisual(Princetonr Princclon University Prcss.l0{)0). I1 should he nolrd that this is not Bland s intcnlion. bul mere_

l] rn uninrendctj inl.rcncc to shich his book ur)lanunrlclr- lcDds itscll. Illand s projcct rdopts th(j Doble

airl ofrcscuing Jc$ish philosophl,rabbilric !hought from lht problcnrLrlic clairn lhal JLrdaism (bJ \irtue oflhe hnn on gra\en inra{es) conslilures a cultural rcgrcssion ht den\ing \isual aesthetics. llouever. Rlanddoes nol challengc lhe rery assumplion upon $hich this clarn r€sts i.e.. that thc ban,'n grarcn rmaues is

not reducible sinply to the realm ol comfi ndnrenrsi prohibirions. This is. rdmittcdly. bcyond tbe intcnt oJ'

BhnJ . r'lheru r.c prr,\,,r'.rt rr .rnri tlne rr,'rk.'"CL, Suson A. llrndclrnLrn. I/r. S/,rt'r i Ol \h:Ls: Tht l:nrcrf<u <.'Ol tl,thhtni. t trrJ,entti(tt l llol'

e)n Li(iut1 //,.,rr1 (Albany: SUNY Picss. l9)31). and \4arlenc Za i,l,et. The I-nthaught Deht: tleitlL'ggetunl the Hcht.tiL fleritage. trans., tlcttina Ucrgo (Sttnli)rd: Slanlbrd Uni\ersit) Press.:(106).-ll'50 (originirlly publishcd as 1-.r /)drl., nrperr(,(, lParis: Ldirions du Scuil. 19901)

clitlr'

clr

lrrlri

IIpr

olrlrltlirrl

II

el

o

a

rlo

r'

p

rts

€

(

. They are.. bitter andre traccs of

essly placclhem, like

:\olution atstinguishednd more to

rm- April 17.

l9l lri

lly under-ltions as an (i.e.. via,llenged inages (as itbbis) does

,:t or is a

inkers putng against

ounter therught: thisuistic factleans both

lorno [.\!dl r

Harr) Zohn

ne (Stanlbrd:;r'r1,ra lMiin-

m Lin ir crsitl

pls thc noble

{b\ \ i[uc ofscvcr'. Blandven irnagcs is

Ithc irrtent ol

,i-l-5{) (origi

lttintnru lle;;iruti.snr; .lganhan s lrtterl)retdtion (l Bctli.tnlitl s Histrt r Tfus,:s 319

'word' and 'thing', thus indicating the originary coincidence/unity ol all being. lcono-clasm, thus, is relegated to the status of a reactile nrode o1'canonizing an exclusivisttheological-political structure. lt is in this sense that Agamberr wishes to think the verycategory of 'b:ln' as both thc mark of sovcreignty and that which designates exclusiorlfrom the comrnunitl.lHS: 28)1" To hold this vieu. however. is to ignore the prolbundtranslbrmation in the medieval period (centering around the thought of Mairnonides)which understands such iconoclasnr-given the unity of'word' and 'thing in davrli.precisel| as d (ritique ol theologicul-politi(ql representation with retpad ro,li|inin.rlHence, the semantic unity contained in dayar as \'!ell as thc f'undam!'ntal thrust ofthcprohibition now assurnes the primarrly critital I'unction olnraking maniLst the limitsof human reason with respect to knowledgc or beliel'claims about the divine and aboutthe coming ot'the Messiah. This critical tunction ol' iconoclasm can be traced throughthe modem era up until our own time (l shall provide a briel'version ofthis marginal-ized tradition in the Conclusion). In its nost recent instantiation, iconoclasm nlanilestsitsell'as a critical limit placed upon ahistorical messianic/utopian rnisappropriation olthe past (understood herc not as an immaterial 'as such' but rather as an expression ofthe generation and corruption 01' nonidentity{), Vicwed in this light. the first and thirdepigrams of the present section coincide in (l) their suspicion to\\'ards utopian modesof thinking and (21 their desire to actualize this suspicion by attempting to shon circuitsuch utopian misappropriations. This coincidence, in turn. allorvs onc to synonymouslyarticulate Benjamin's tlleses through the Adornian category of'late style' (indicated inthe second epigram). Benjamin's theses are not openings to\\'ards a messianic union oforigin and end. but rather 'denatured' (i.e., non-appropriable, 'the feasibility of whichremains an open question'). 'spiny' traces ol the caesura between the history whichproduced them and the (perhaps inevitable) utopian/messianic longings which ulti-mately afflict humans. A synonym for this'late style' which discloses such a'dena-tured caesura' is iconoclasm: such iconoclasm is present in Benjamin's "History" the-ses not simply as an 'anti-representational representation' (\'hich, qua representationalwould be 'idolatrous'), but as a concrete aspect of the text's very enactment. Difl'er-ently stated, Benjamin's "History" theses amount to an exemplary instance ol'negativedialectics'decades befbre Adorno composed his seminal uork ofthe same nanle.

Given this iconoclastic impulse in Benjamin's text. its fragmentary quality ex-presses neither (l ) simple 'liagmentation fbr fragnrentation's sake' (i.c., fragnentatiorlcs srtll nor (2) a positive argument against messianism luhich u'ould itself merelyconstitute the reverse side of messianism). Insteucl, Benjamin s text o'ititall.t negatesall pQsitive cluims e.Jvo('ating dnr contant hut,ing to do wilh tlcssiqnisrtt. Adornofiakes the point in lhe lbllowing manner: "Ber!amin overexposes . . . objects lbr thesake of thc hidden contours u hich one day. in thc state of reconciliation. u,ill becorrcevidcnt. but in so doing hc rcveals the chasnr separating that day and lil'e as it is."(Pr:

'" As Agarnbdr notcs. h( takcs up thi:, thought lionr J('an'Luc Nanc\'s discussiur ol baD as anord€r.aprescription. a dc'crcc. a penrisslol- antl thc po\\'cr tha! hold\ lhcsc lieely at its disposrl. {see Jern-Luc Nan-ct. lhcltrtthT,, l\r\ ,\ lr ns.BnallIlolnles.cl.dl lstanlind: Slanli]rd University l)ress. l99l J.,+.1-4.{).

' l-hc nflnr( (\.rlnplc ol lhr\ i. B(r,k l ol \4rirnonidas' CuiJ. d th /1,,7,/dr.!/ irrs(ilar as rl \\'slemiiti-call\ \ho$\ thc cltLf\ocrlrl\ ol Scripturill lcrnts u\cd lo relcr to Cod.

" t t:. ,qleranrtrr (larcia I)iitlnrann. tht, ,\Lnt,,tt {)l Thnghr. .4n t.\\o.\ 0r llL,itlrygtr .ltnt lthrtto.trun\.. Nichol,rs $rlkcr (Nlj\ York: ( ontinuunr Uooks. llilJ2)- E6-li7 (origin0lh puhlishcd as l)arGuLtltrnrtht l), k,)t\ l.r\tuhiiht lhdt::!(t rnl . t,D|, (\uhrlanrp Verlag. l9()1)

-120 lr rRr \ Br R\\ ll r\

l.li) In his critical dcplol'ment c,l terrns such as rncssirnic' rnd 'r'cdenrption'. Bcnja-nril's'late-stlle'thcses disclose the iconotlastic cacsura $hich alrvavs alreadv scpa-

latcs oLrr dcsire 1o achieve reconciliation and rcality. llence. any ttsagc ol'nrcssianiclanguage in Bcnjarrin. I claim. must always be hcard conditionally (i.c., as relcrring tothe revolutionary c|pacity ol'past hisk)r-v) or rronically. Dil'1.:rcntly statc-ti. uhereAgamben's nrcssilnic Bcnjarrin !.\prcsscs ueuning-firl ht'litl, tha iconoclastic Bcnja-nrin expresses,rgirrrl r. l-hercfore. lhe'unit)'of llenjalrin's lirgmentar] slitirrc is nei-ther discursivc nor intellcctual. but rather lbxeJirl; sucl'r 'unily'occr.us as the cfl'cct ofan allcctire gravitational pull via the catcsorv ol iconoclasm'.

It is the purpose ol-this section to hagitl to shor how this interpretation better rc-sonates u'ith the rnovernent ot Bcnjamin's "History" theses. Giren thc linritations ofthis paper. only alentents of an iconoclastic interprc'tation ol"'On The ('oncept o1'His-tory'can be gircn. I *ill proride thcse elements ria a re-reading ofthe theses rvhichlbrrn the basis lor Aganrben's interpretation.rl

Any attempt at presenting clements of an iconoclastic interpretation ol'Benja-rnin's text uould have to begin with the very titlc olthe theses-"On the Concepl ofHistory" which. in fact, nukes pure citability extremely problenratic. The more fb-mous title ot the text. "Theses on the Philosophy ol History" was a subsequent accre-tion given to thc text by "lhe members of the Institute fbr Social Research, who pub-Iishecl it fbr the llrst time in I943, in the United States."* The lbrm of the text clearlyrefers to Marx's lamous "Theses on Feuerbach". yet Benjamin's criticism of StalinistRussia led Gershonr Scholem to understand the theses as Benjamin's overall responseto the Hitler-Stalin pact(WBP: 36) and hence not simplr locatable uithin a Marxisttrajectory. The text certainly critiques attempts at constructing a 'philosophy' ofhistory(insofirr as such philosophies were characterized by progressivist teleological narra-tives). But thc text doesn't go so f'ar as to critique the 'concept' of history as such, inso-f'ar as the text itself seeks to provide a mat!'rialist concept of history as apprehension of'now-time' in the service of interrupting thc supprcssion olthe past (as conventionallyappropriated). In surnmary. thc text's'name' expresses no more originarily an 'as such'ol language than do more determinate. regionalized linguistic acts. This montent is thefirst in a series of what nright be temed 'descriptive. agnostic insights' about reality(discursive or otherwise) uhich one tinds throughout Benjamin's theses.

This ugnoiu continucs rr,ithin the context of thesis 2. To say that our imuge ofhappiness is indissolubly bound up \\'ith an l/,,.€e of redemption by lirtue ol a secretindex bequeathed to us by the past is to say that (l) our praxis (theoretical or other-rvise) arise solely within an associative (i.e.. imaginal) constellation and that (2) thisconstellation constitutes a historical burden-i.e., the concatenation of e\pecta-tio investment between happiness and redenrption. It is a 'ueak' messianic porver

l' t.oru n,ur. g"n.rut iconochsric rcading ol Bcn.ianlin \lhich is svmpilhetlc to ny o\n. see RebeccaC('ma). Mrtcrialist \lutrlions of lhe Bildcr\crbot. in Sitlr Dl J i\it,1 tht Diynrrnt Con't tdinn olSisht in th! lli\tt)ti ol l)hilotopht, cd.. I)a\id Nlichacl Le!in (C0ribridgei Thc Ml'I Prcss. l9q9).,ll7-178.Fnr onedelling rnore rpecillcrlly $rth rhc llis()n, thcses. \ee R.becca (lonral''.-BenJamir-s Endgame.'tn lt'L !rr Be t Dti .t I'hilo*4tht DtsrntLttotl onLl L\p"ri!tu(. c(is.. \ndr,j\\ Ilcninmtn rnd Peler ()sborn€(Ne \r York: Routledre. l9().1).l5l-191.*

Pierrc Nlrssac.'iJirlrcr B(nit tin \ Purrl.rj.r\. trans.. Shierry \\cber \ieholson t(ambridgc:1he t4lTPrcss. It/95). 15. toriginall) publishcd rrs t\tttt.." lt tlitlt.t Boid ti lParis: liliti(,rrs du Scuil. 19871).llcnceti)ih r\ (WBP: prgc nu her).

ien ja-

scpa-; ian icing tovhereienja-s nei-ect of

er rc-rns nl'l' llis-.vhich

ienja-:pt 01'

re fh-LCCrC-

pub-Ieallyr linistponseafxististorylalra-inso-on ofrnallysuch'is the'ealitY

rge, ofsecfetJther-l) thispecla-)0\\ cr

I7 -l71.

ganc.'

r! \ll I

I er; l1

321

both because it provides no guarantees and because (insofbr as 'messianic' is synony-nlrus, for Benjanrin, wilh 'revolutionary' ) it can only be actualized collectively (i.e..via oppressed humanity).(FA: 33) lt is tor this reason that this "claim cannor be settledcheaply".(l: 254) To state this is to acknowledge thc enormous caesua between theattainmenl of happiness and the actual elticacy of revolutionary movements. Insofar asthese movements have betrayed their historical promises in the fbrm of mass genocide,enslavement. and creation of poverty. humanity cannot (in the language of thesis 3)consider itsell redeemed. And if only a redeerned humaniry receives the fullness of itspast in the lbrnr ()1'total and complete citability (here understood as either perceptiveintelligibility or as the decreativc kind lbund in Agamben). then redemption can in n.)va.t be hori:onall.t' acknorledgect. The dead rernain dead and cannot be brought back.Put differently. the future (in thc lbrm of 'receiving the fullness of the past') is openonly to itself(until it should happen to become present).(WBP: 120)

While Benjamin, in no way. rules out the possibility (as he states in thcsis 5) Ihattlre past (again understood as past events) can be grasped as images in the lbrm of in-stantaneous lightning llashes. it must be stressed that such events can be grasped onl'as images (i.e-. as lacking an)' moment of unconditionality: as with Benjamin's refer-ence to monads in thesis 17. these images express past events only tiom a particularstandpoint. ln other uords. There are. lbr Benjamin. no guarantees of remembrance.Moreover, every image not renrerlrbered is gone forever. This situation. as Benjamingleans historicall)' in thesis 8. is not the exception but the rule of contemporary lifb.Given this. the historical materialist must orient him/herself towards a materialist cor-ceptbn (as opposed to a teleological philosoph.r,l of history so that the materialist'sorientation and the perception of history resonate. In doing so. and in unlocking mar-ginalized aspects olhistory, one questions the priority ofthe.r/alas guo and thus bringsabout a 'real state ofemergency'. This interruption ofthe stalrr qao amounts to a frag-ile and temporarl interruption ol the historical narratiles rvhich each and every timeunderpin views concerning progress-narratives u'hich, ultimately lead to quietisminsothr as they suppon the perception of Fascism as a historical norm. Put difl'erently.thc project here is one of histo-y as demythologization. This au'areness momentarilyimproves humanity's position $ ith respect to the struggle against Fascism insofar as itsho\\sjust ho\\ remote from reality illusion leaves humanity.

The attainrnent o1'this revolutionary standpoint is by no means easy for humans.ln an inversion ol the traditional notion of thc eternal deity pcrceiving all time as anun( stant. Benjanrin rct'ers to the angel ol history (in thesis 9), l,ho vieus historicalprogress as a catastrophe piling wreckagc upon wreckage. This vieu'. like its traditionaltheological cousin. is a rior uhich is. in principle. unthinkable bl,humans i.e., ueare always afllicted by rzal utopian longings whether in the forrn ol'politically revolu-tionary impulses (as described by Benjarnin) or ontotheologically messianic impulses(as articulated by Agamben). ln liont o1'humanity lies the immanent task ol'cxercisingcontirued rigor against spccific manifcstations of such longing. In other words, themyth of progress derircs liom a colossal misunderstanding of history. Thc questionagain becomes one of thc e" cr-renewed project 01' education r ia demyihologization.

The substitlrtc conccpt ol'historical limc as concretely rccurrcnt 'no\\'s' (as op-poscd to thc homogeneous. enpt) time illustratcd in thcsis l4)can- in l'acl. be affirma-tir cl1' undcrstood along thc model o,',(.rlllr,t rathef than r:/rir;irr,,.r. Why one would nec-

Jt.r! Rr \ ilrk\sll r\

!'ssarily have to grant philosophical lppeal to Paul lirr this insight is unclcar gi\en that

one llnds a similar conccpt of tirnc iI Aristotle (whcre. in the P/rt.rl.s. titne ultimatelygets articulated as a cyclc ofnon-identical moments). In any case. thc 'no\\' is 'placcd-

time': it is alrvays embodicd. contextual. and historically situated. To hold that its lcla-tion to the hishry of humanity corresponds to the relation bet\"ecn the history of hu-

manity and the universe (as stated in thesis l8) is to acknowledge the alnrost impercep-tible qualify ol'each and every non-identical 'now'. Put dillerently, the re\olutionarymoment is not, itself. subject to reprcsentation (even if the dialectical inage which sig-nals it, to a certain extent. is ).

As stated earlier. Bcnjamin's point is not 10 espouse despair. Rather. it is to moveaway fiom the particular dialectic of hope and despair. Any possibility of seizing a re-volutionary moment is conlingent upon our understanding ol u here the crisis lies. andhorv difllcult it is to break rvith such a crisis. Then. and onll'thcn. can ue begin towork towards change. And tbr Benjamin. change is always a mattcr of re-embodyinghistory via sober remembrance which cuts against the .\tutlts quo. However. just as

there is no 'as such'to the past or to language, there is also no'as such'to'the present'or to 'law', 'authority', etc. This is, again. not a claim which states that revolutionarystruggles are rvorthless. It is a clain.r, however, $'hich states that ( l) such a struggle de-pends lbr its critical materials on the historical insights and developmental narrativesconcerning all inherited social and political categories and (2) there is no guarantee ofsuccess or ability to envision what a fullilled humanity would look like; it is, in thct, itis just these 'idolatrous' attempts which have, in many cases. ended in disaster.

C'oncluding Remurks

This paper is successlul il'it shous the viability ofa radically dilferent interpretation ofWalter Benjamin's "History" theses lrom Agamben's-i.c.. one which operates underthe alternative category of iconoclasm'. Although I havc been arguing that the icono-clastic interpretation is more in line uith Benjamin's thinking than Agamben's anti-nomically messianic interpretation, I wish nonethcless to alllrm his project ofarticulat-ing a marginalized history ol philosophical Judaism which takes Benjamin's thought as

its point of departure. As stated earlier. to suggest ihat Agambcn's usage of Jeu,ishsources is in conflict with Jewish intellectual history is to miss thc point of his overallproject. lnstead, I rvould suggest the need tbr an qlternutivc marginalized history basedon a different 'now-time' than the one nhich I see underpinning Agambcn's project.Agamben's antinomically messianic usage of the Talmud. Midrash. Kabbalah, andShabbatai Zevi were very appropriate- perhaps even necessary - rlithin tlre context ofScholem's (and Benjamin's) Europe. At the tail-end of bitter disputes between theHaskalah movement (which emphasized assimilation to European culture) and the Or-tlrodox reaction (which emphasized purc adherence to the laws and rituals of rvhat ittook to be traditional Judaism). Scholem's project of establishing an academically re-spectable study ol Jewish mysticism was relieshing and exciting. Similarly. MartinBuber and Abraham Joshua Heschel contributed to this general projcct by illustratingmystical versions of Hassidic impulses within the contcxts of their orvn theologicalcareers. Today, horvever, when sirnplificd translations of Kabalistic texts can reatlily befbund at most commercial bookstores and embraced by popular entertainrncnt fcrson-alities. it has become ever clcarer that messianic and mvstical tbrrr.rs olJudaism untbr-

tunatcis ilonultirnagranr )

radicacessirsimltl.r

o1'thirginnirbilityand vr(i.e.. !criticaactualbelierrl hatpartic

to tlrirlrcspecrhe di!litlcs I

"Ccrs,

BrcIoban):

ishai I

Sirat.

lioy S

ot M.

rr given thatle ultimately,'is'placed-that its rela-istory of hu-

st impercep-evolutionary

1e which sig-

it is to moveseizing a re--isis Iies. andu,e begin to:-embodying'ever, just as

'the present'-evolutionary

r struggle de-

tal narrativesguarantee of

i is, in fact, itLSter.

erpretation ofperates underrat the icono-rmben's anti-:t of articulat-r's thought as

ge of Jewishol his overallhistory bascdben's project.-abbalah, and

the context ofbetween the

:) and the Or-als of $hat it,dcnrically re-ilarly. Martinby illustrating

'n theologicalcan rcadil1" be

lmcn1 pers0n-udaisnr untbr-

tunately manifest extreme compatibility with conspicuous Capitalist consumption. Thisis ironic insofar as it suggest that a thinking which strives to meet unconditionality isultimately tethered that which is conditional (thus illustrating Adorno's initial epi-gram). Today, a marginalized tradition of philosophical Judaism (one with genuinelyradical potential) would have to cast a critical glance at both utopian longings and ex-

cessive consumption (either ofimages, words, or things) even ifsttch a glance amounls

simplJ, to the sk)wing dov,n of a seeninglt' inevilable analogotts totlsut ptive com-potctbitiry While providing a detailed alternative genealogy would far exceed the scope

of this paper, I would suggest that tlre construal of a critical iconoclastic tradition be-

ginning with Medieval concerns over the unrepresentability of God and the incalcula-6ility o=f Messianic return (e.g., Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, Gersonides, and Leone Ebreoa5)

and venturing into the modern critiques of (borh democratic and authoritarian) theodicy(i.e., Spinoza, Mendelssohn, and Freud) would provide interesting resources lbr such a

critical glance. This construal would also go a longer way than Agamben has towards

actualizing a Benjaminian history of marginalized Jewish discourse. Nevertheless, Ibelieve that, in the end, Agamben has provided a senice by illustrating one model ofwhat such a history might look like (regardless of whether or not one agrees with hisparticular lersion of it1.16

r: In order lo gather together these diverse thinkers under the catcgory ol iconoclasm' one would have

to think togelher scvcral issues: the critique oldi\ine attribution. thc principle ol acconmodation uithrespecl to ScriptLrrc (i.c.. '1he Torah speaks lhe IanEluage of man'). the cquivocality of Scriptural language.

the discussions concerningthe'unity'ofGod. and the inherenl li ilations ofhuman reason The ibllouingritles provide on^ the most itiitiul 'il,gge'niot concerning thrs constcllationi Herbert Da\idson. ,ly'o\er

lldinknidd; The Jt4dD And /1i! Works (Ox,brd: Oxibrd Universily Press. 1005). ldit Dohbs-Weinslein."Oersonidcs Radically Modern Undcrstanding olllrc Agenl lnlellecl." ivlecting offie Minds: Th! Reldtion:i

Brtween itlcL/ie|Ltt ond Ctatsical llloden Eurcpaun Philosophv. ed. Stephen Bro\l'n (Louvainla-Neuve:Brepols. l99E). l9l-211. ldit Dobbs-Weinstein. Lluinutntdes dn.l St Tho lct\ on th! Li lit\ ol Re.I'ion \Alban): SUNY Prens. 1995). Atros Funkcnslein- Theolag LI LI th. S(ie tili( lnqinatin filtn th( Mitldlr,lg('s to the SrrL,ttt(enll (erlr/n (Princetolr: Princeton Univcrsity Press. 1986). Moshe l]albertal and A\-ishai Margrlil. /r/o1dlr-r.1rans.. Naomi Goldbluln ((ambridge: I{arvard tjniversity Press. 1992). and Coleue

Srrlrr. I /rJ1,r'r ,tl .Lnish Phil'r,'tfir It th( .\lildle Agli lCambridge: Canbridge Uni\ersily Press. 1990)r' Fnr r r(lJrnt lr(.rlrnLnt ol Ap.trnhen's relalion lo Ie$ish thoughl of$hich Iarn sympathetic. see Jef

tie,\ S. t-ibrrit. 'ljron the Sacriilcc oflh! Letler tl) ihc Vorcc ol Testimony: Ciorgio Agamben's Fulfillmentol Nl€laphlsics"- 1)7.rt,;/l{ \ Volumc37. Numbers 2-3. Sumner-Fall2007. I1-ll