The Point Is to ERead' ( x)Change It:

Ing Canitr-: aI, RhetoricallyThomas Keenan

Wesuffer not I. on y frSOlsit1e 'f om the II' .VI • ving but I fr... Perse ' a so om the dead. Lemortdr Us used a .aw the rna i magIc cap asthe eXistenc g c cap down over protection from monsters.We

e of th eyes ande monsters ears, so that we can deny

-Karl Marx, Preface to tbe First

In motivation . Edition of Capitallacks the . ' If not in its cl .patIence t alms, Marxi .o pursue its sm IS a poetic thought that

own cone] .-r-Paul d M usrons to their end.. e an, "Th .CrIticism" in . e Dead-End of Formahst

B1mdness and 1nsight

Gene rot Prine/PIes,lmmed'"T late Questions

the poi he philos hOInt is t op ers hunj t ' 0 cha ave only .n erpreted nge it "1 Th lnterpreted htimes voctr and unch~ e eleventh and f t e world differently;I erous, hope thnged,2 stands in f mal thesis on Feuerbach,

at reg 1 or a som ti1. "d. u arly circul t e rmes quiet, some-~a"uf a~,eSi~hilosophenhab a es through intellectual en-rederick E zu veronder "en dIe WeIEngels, Selengels, Werke n. Karl Marx ~,nUt verschied2 RecaUctedWorks;~ ;01 3 (Berlir: ThesenuberFe~nlnterprelJert;es kommt

Phrasereads,~at Engelschne Volume [NDIetz, 1958) 7' ~b~ch,,,inKarlMarxandes kO

mmtabe/~ged things ~: York. Int~rn'atl: IMarx and Frederick

arauf an" M nSlderably . h' a, 1971), 30

1

arxd .lDlSv·52 an Engels 1Mk erslOn,the crucIal, er e. 3'535, Marx, "Con~

The Point Isto (Ex)Change It 153

counterswith ethicopolitical questions. It is a call for responsibility, andItsurgencyis eve h d . .n more c arge when what ISencountered ISa text byM1arx.A reading 01Capital carries with it, alter all, a double promise ofrelei: not only th' . .hetori e promise 01 the potentIal for theoretIcal or meta-r ~to~Ical"progress beyond [the) local difficulties of interpretation,"3W IC too olten obstruct or stall the reading of literary texts but also theeve d 'n more esirable promise 01 some intervention in what is calledeconomic0 liti 1. r po I ica reality, the last instance or brute lacts of capilal-:~m'bwhichcall out not just for interpretation and its inevitable difficul-ies ut lor change.It i~by no means naive or "untheoretical" to put one's laith in this

promtse lnd d . .it If . ee, It IS the exemplary promise 01 philosophy or theory1se I' the attraction of a rellected conceptual apparatus purified of the

boca and merely immediate particularities 01a text or a situation-notecausethose li dtffi .h b

pecu iar IfftcultIes have been Ignored but because they

ave eenb k dd rac ete and accounted lor at a more lundamentallevel. Onesvolutichave to be a Leninist to subscribe to the dictum that withoutrevoution thal ary eory there is no revolutionary practice. Philosophy haswdaysthought responsibility as just this articulation 01understandingan action . tth "th "Ill erpretation and change, where each "and" stands in forwe us' that signifies a foundation. In that final thesis, perhaps, Marxhas only recalling the philosophers to their responsibility, which they. iter often lacked the patience-if not the desire-to pursue to an end:~nerpret, so as to change. This at least was Heidegger's reading, although~ seems to have thought he was criticizing Marx, when he quoted thee eventh thesis to a television interviewer and commented that "chang-ing the Id[WI won presupposes changing the representation of the worldI tvorstellung], and a representation of the world can be obtained

on ywhen one has sufficiently interpreted the world."4}f for Marx there~as all too much interpretation without change, surely lor philosophY~e would be no changing without interpreting. The groundedness of,;.n hence the responsibility lor, both the change and the very impera-rve to change itself would depend on the secure installation 01 that

Cer ' -INe~n~Feuerbach,"in EorlyWritings,trans.RodneyLivingstoneandGregorBentonork. Vmtage. 1975), 423.ix ~' Paa/ulde Man, Allegories of Reading (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979),

, ere ter abbreviated ARard<W:'MartinHeidegger1m'Gesprach,"inMartinHeideggerimGesprach,ed.Rich-

VI'n Isser (Freiburg: Karl Alber 1970) 69' "Martin Heidegger: An Interview," trans.cent G I' " , .orl" 1 uag lardo and Robert Pambrun Listening6 (Winter 1971): 35, emphases IIIglOa. •

154Thomas Keenan

Vorstelluncalled an ,~' The final thesis thphy which u~spoken demand f en, serves not anIgoverned alms to make a ' or a philosoph" ,y as what Heideggerphilos

o

hbya prior inter dlff~rence (veriinl (j35j, for that in philoso-

But c p y, pretabonj, but also a etrhn responsibly (a chang,, an the s e exempl dmterpretation possibility of this ' ary emand ofry and its' of philoso h artICulation betions th t mterpretation: y, and of politics' taken for granted? Whatby the e~ seek to change? ~~ required to fa' ISlresupposed when theo-figured :~enth thesis and ese are the que~~' or ground the interven-tive" of at he called' by the reading f IOns most radically posedMarx an~ reconciliati~~r~nically, the "hig:1 Capital, Paul de Man oncePhra;e M "the wishful h etween cognitl'o y respectable moral impera-

arx . ope f nand tiand a Comm in The Germa I~ having it both ac IOn by reference to~or the inve~nal moralist i: theology, a formali:

ays, ,of ,being, 10 para-

c ar~, though,~ent in moral co e a!ternoon" (AR entre ~n the morning, onslders th he moral i nSClence could ,6). Neither this hoped interpreta~ passage alre:perative is mora] t ~~operIY be attributed toImperative' on and chan y secured by a a e precise extent that itlnd IS to d ge mu t n extrap ]' ,meed, to say ,a mit that th' s be articulat a Itlcal authority, Butake the dem SImply that" IS

kpossibility' bed, then the force of the

even 'f and' es a IS y nIn I the confi WIthout regar mmt darauf an" ,? means guaranteed,is and are forgan dence in the d to its possibilit ( what matters") is to, In no wa e, even if the passage and th y, To do so implies that

~1~I~~Isits tr~n~~~one Or avO%:rballfoundatio:s rg~spectability of the de-Ical a matio f e In h ve way th ' 'Tha ne, And i n rom a ll: s orthand' ' e Imperabve

groUndt Capital mak n that sense ~ Ilosophical or ' Its survival simplyed or d' es the ,apital ' moral im 'a polit' Ifficult b question f IS a polit' I perallve to aleal on ,etwe 0 readi lea text

prefaces W, e seems t en inter r ng-the pas 'reading C' e can start ~ have bee p etatinn and h sage, however un-

Opit I WIth M n the c angewrote in th a, a text h arx's ex I' ,particular ff -unavoidablyation whiche preface to~h OSe"acces~~CIt reflection: art of the text's

outweighs aIle French editlhty to the wor~~ the problem ofs, K I others,'" 'I: lon, was fa h' mg class," as he

(N ar Marx C Oenc r Imth "ew York, V' ' apHal' A OUrage it e consider-

~~:p~";~I~ta~l(r~~i;;;~' 1~~lijh~' a~Palilical E s reading by such aleX!,appe:r/872-7S; Paris~Marx) is !ongliShtran~fnamy, vol. 1bal/lischen 6~: Karl,Marx',~:~gr~S,198~)d in Karl"::ton is here~f~ans, Ben Fowkes

~i~I:U::::s4~:~e~oz:,/~h~~:~ 0J-::I a":J' ir;l:r~~i~;:~~;:v~~di~~~~~v~~~~n~r am aspects ?ecessary to lurg 1890 ed' :'edrich E ge, Dus K "The Germanu Marx's Gern': ler Fawkes,~I~on]),31 hngels, WerkeUP/tol,Kritik der

an and French ~gliSh trae::tft.er abbr~v~o:.d23

(Berlin:exts more ~honin ord a e DK. It has

c early. er to bring out

The Point Is to (Ex)Change It

public,the French bli h h d ' 'pu IS er a proposed releasmf the book as a senal,

so as not to ave hi'rw elm its readers, Marx welcomed the temporizing

gesture,yet remain d 'k" ' 'e wary, rna mg CapItal more accessIble, he wrote, IS

the good side fI

' a your medal, but here is the reverse; the method of

anaYSlSwhich I hIdte h ave emp aye ", makes the reading of the first chap-

rs rat er arduo d i b f" us, an It IS to e eared that the French public, always

impatient to conel d,I u e, eager to know the relation between general prin-

cip es and the i diI

id A e imme late questions which have aroused its passions

aVI e ~e con tt 1tions I noi re e rapport des principes generaux avec las ques-

ons Immediate ' Iw'II S qUI e passionnentj, may be disheartened because it

I not have be bl iahen a e. ng t away to move on {paree qu'iI n'aura pu

pas tout d'abo d 'ca d r passer outre), That is a disadvantage against which I

n 0 nothin ff t h g, except to orewarn and forearm those readers who care

or rut , (C, 104; LC, 11)

Like the rna Apearl bu d ny esops that open with the fable of the cock that finds aing ab t r"~~not know what to do with it, Capital begins with a warn-the tout allmg to move from knowing directly on to doing, and abouttell emp:ral ,structure of the desired articulation, In reading, time willhy tb':' ut hme to read is always also time to stop reading, Guided

IS warnmg , h k'ave th' -agamst t 'e eagerness of a reading that wants to s Ip

r e mterpr t t'reI tea IOn to get to the change, that wants to know how to

a e general . . Iartie I' prmclp es to immediate questions-Marx advises thatu allan take t" d' dIdto h s pa lence. ImpatIence frustrates rea Illg an ea s

un c ,ange without interpretation, passionately immediate-and thus

prmclpleddis -answers, But the demand for patience can generate a

couraged or ' t'all A d reJec mg reader and thus no reading-and no change-atth' r lUaUSreading always threatens to become impossible; driven byto~tZ~~ to relate, the reading public may find itself in a bind, unable,Un bl abord, to get out of the difficulty of that very relation and thus

I

't a fe to go on reading. If reading from the start promises the possibil-yo th" " " ' "t IS mabllIty-not Just the inability to make the artIculatIOn be-i:e~~general principle and immediate question but, more radically, theadl lty to move beyond that inability since what is in question is

rea lng' 'h"" • .s POSSI IlIty m the first place-then reading CapItal can be nomarfe, and no less, than an effort and a chance, . , the chance of the

pre ace's w II k 'and e _ nown next sentence, "There is nO royal road for SCIence,

h

onlY

those who do not fear the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have

a c ance of h' 'reac lUg lts luminouS summits,"thThere is no road for reading, no path or method; simply the effort ande fahgue of the difficult chance. As chance, reading and its difficulty

155

156 Thomas Keenan

defy cal I '... eu ahon in adwill have been un vance, refuse predictiequally powe I able to move on .. , on, If Capital's French publicM r ess b f ' ,warnes th far~ writes, nothi e are this inability, "A ,e pre ace, the text itself IS~bIhty is themati ng except write the gainst this I can do nothing,"109at best and d zed, Faced with the preface itself in which the Ill-Imp "Isablm prospect of t hat iosslhIlity th g at worst whi h ri a ext t at ISdiscourag-ble circumsc;ipt~ preface suggest~ not~' ngorously threatens its "own"except to forewa~~n ofdthe threats it face~n~~ther than itself as the possi-ers are thus pre an forearm those -d gamsr this I can do nothingnoth: armed lth rea ers h 'c 10g other than wit nothing nothi w a care for truth," Read-

tonclusion and ea the negative kno;"1 d ing other than this warninga the di Serness t e ge that th ' , 'ph I ,Isabling of the 0,connect general ' .eir Impatience for apU~I~~hC knowledge a{eadlng itself, Armed with Immediate may leadthe ch Is freed to take it out the inabilities f with this would-be pro-[new ance that someth ~chances, The chan 0, knowledge, the readinghapp) rrughj be learne~ng [unexpected) m~~ls ~he chance of difficulty,

Mens only in the ' Reading, in thi ig tappen, that somethingarx ne enCOunt IS sense if !cult [Aile ver underestima er with difficult ' I ,It happens at all,

the fIrst r:nfang ist sch ted this djfficultyy,~nd without guarantees.'commod'~- upter, especi ~~rl. holds in all sci - very beginning is diffI-Schwier' kles,will therefa y the section th etnce, The understanding of

Ig eIt]" are m k a cant' hGermaIl p f (C, 89' DK a e for the gre tams t e analysis ofrea '11) b a est d'ff

of abstraction~."' It continu~s ' egins the third I Iculty [die meistefrom Its 0 (to which ' after a justifl'cat' paragraph of the first

fwnl d' we'll IOnh' ,orm, the f n Ictment' "w' WI return) b 1Og1Ogon the "powerre are th' ' l!h th ' Y not q 'tunderstand [S' IS book Ca e exception of t UI e excusing Itself

wants to Ie chwerversta dl nnot stand ac he sectIOn on the value90; OK, 12~r~ something :,~chkeIt], I assu~sed as being difficult toexhaUstion 'of w~uld only be ~nd thus to thin~ ~aturally a reader whoSOmething n avaIlable know In the expo sur or hlm- or herself" (C~'amed the Si~": might happeledge and the we to this difficulty, in th~~g called rea~;~ ~hiCh difflc:it A~d if the u';;;e~f learning more, that~t very self forg ~Omething n:W)as always been standIng subject has

~n y if one read w lch we (wa t mIght mark th overcome, this think-urther, de te fi bs-If One can ~ to) think a e troubling as well of

aula norratur!' S Marx s~YS:ef can ~earn this lesson6, On "d' Capltal a hVolu

0 lfficulty'" paragrapme ne'" In read'

York: Monlhi In Lenin and P~~gCapHalrequire for .. Ye~vie\VPress l~~osoPhyQ~~e~rLoUisAlthueducation" bP U·bou.rgeois',. 1),71-106 her Essay sser, "Preface t C .

ut a "rupture" (llntellectuals'''' especially h~'tr~ns,Ben B 0 opJtol,Ol). to be abl IS dlscussi rewster (Newe to read Co ~n of what it will

Pltal: not a "mere

-

The Point Is to (ExlChange It157

Monster, Carrier: Only in Use

Allbeginningsare difficult. The first twa sentences of Capital read asfollows;"The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode ofproductionprevails appears as [erscheint cls, s'annonce com me] a'mo

n-

strouscollection of commodities [ungeheuere Warensammlung]: thesinglecommodity as its elemental form. Our investigation therefore be-;msWiththe analysis of the commodity" (C, 49; LC, 43; DK, 125), Cut-ingoffthe quotation quickly, we can begin rather telegraphically, Thematterat i is th f hissue IS t e appearance or self .announcement 0 sornet mg assomethingelse, the rhetorical structure of simile or metaphor [nls,co~me); semblance, shine, simulation or dissimulation, In those so-cietieswhere the capitalist made of production prevails, something~~cOnOmiC)shows itself by hiding itself, by announcing itself as same-mgelse or in another form,Here, what shape or form does capitalist wealth take on in its self-

presentation or self-dissimulation? Wealth appears as ' ' , a monster;somethin ' ,d d f1 g Immense,' colossal, yes, but also a thmg compoun e 0

~ements from different forms wild but nat natural and certainly notomesticated, simply thrown ~ogether into a heap, grown beyond thecpontrolof its creators, The Vngeheuer is a riesenhaftes, hii/llichesabeltier (" ' , ' ' h' D t h\\I" a gIgantIc hideous fable ammal," says the Wa ng eu sc esorterbuch];B etymologically, it is something lacking the security of a

settlement or the cornman comfort of a home, Something(s) assembledorcollected, but in such a way that the parts do not add up to a whole-nothing but parts, unnatural and uncommon, d8mesure, Aberrant, de-VIant th' h h 't, ' e monstrous 1Sthe form of appearance of weal! , t e way 1slg~ifies itself, as something(s) else,9 The figure of this monstrosity,hVIngand dead (the Wahrig links ungeheuer to unheimlich, unhomelymonst 't 'roSl y to ghostly recurrence), ha'.1nts this chapter, appearIng, as

here wh I '" en east expected and out of all proportIOn,ThIS "monstrous collection" is also a quotation, a self_presentation

fro I .. 'm e sewhere ("Karl Marx Zur Kritik der Politischen okonom18,B I' 'er 10 1859, S, 3," says the footnote] and if we folloW the lead we findnot' . '" Just the two quoted words but virtually the same sentence, agam:The wealth of bourgeois society, at first sight, presents itself as an

, 7, The prevailing English translalion of ungeheuere as "Immense" turns the open-lUg sentence into a virtual transposition of Wordsworth's Intimations Ode: "Thall,whose exterior semblance doth belie thy Soul's immensity."

8. Gerhard Wahrig, Deutsches worterbuch (Munich: Mosiak, 1987), 1330.t' 9, See Jacques Derrida on the "monstrosi1y of monstrasity. monstrosity of monstra-lon." "La main de Heidegger {Geschlecht II)," in psyche {Paris: Galilee. 1987). 422.

158 Thomas Keenan

ungeheuere 1Mthe arensam 1gesture of ,m ung, ", a Th 'two wo d quollng On e imrnediatout r s, with the a eself, from an ea I' e question is why? Why

answeri ' pparatu f r ier andfunction ng, It is at Ie t s a quotation rna k fsurpassed draft, fors as a m as worth r s, ootnote t 1W'

another t onster or h remarking th ' e c.. ith-can be ext. And it dep aJ ost, an uncann ,at the quotation Itself

acts as i~eth:oduced, mm~~es:lon a slructura/c~~~~~; accumulated lromand re y were notht y and mecha ' on of words-theyonly too;,:ved 10 and fro:::gc but commoditie;'I~:~y reproduced-whichproperty o;rafted or inserte~~texts, delayed 'and ~ accumulated, movedwarned is I the mechanical into some other Ie I elayed between textsOf what .arearmed) on a irnb (a forearm IX: transferred like (ols)

f IS the monst ' et s say' ftarm of thi monste er. ' a er all, fore-ti IS unrul r compos d?on, its und y collection eo : Marx namappearance efr-takin

g(Unte the commodity (",os the unit or elemental

and" a the I rsuche "are), Cap'! I" 'the an I ' arm), "be' n, probin b lOS mvestIga-ance into E/a YSls of the co gms wilh" the d

geneath the dissimulative

this "metho~menlorformen,:m~ditY'''lhe di::~;lltCUlation of the mooster

pretive dilf" of analysis" t n then their red Ulan of wealth's appear-SU' ICUlty , a wh' h ucllve des Its dest 10 the p IC Marx h ecomposition, It ISmOdity as s~~~turing miss~~f:c\ and the firs~dc:ttributed all the inter-, The initial t IS analyzed - oth as meth d apter relentlessly pur-'pmmediale qU:rlms of a re~~7d not merely ~y M

andas theme, The com-

ears as SIan Wh ng can arx,Or lr anOlher b' at links th now be gath

h

anslerred t ' y which so e structure b ered together as anaunti a sam methi' y wh' hW'th

ngand (2) th ewhere else ng IS substilut d /c one thing ap-

com lout answerl'Ie movement o'lwIth (1) the ad e or something elsemodit ' 19, C anal' vent of 'simple y, FIrst 01 all apllal begin YSls or reduc' monstrosIty or

The co~' a commodit ,prIOr to all ot~ the analytic de~on?some th' mOdity is a wY IS "an exter ~r determinal' omposilion 01 theililIlg I' Illg, but to be ?y 01 doing th?a object a th IOns, at its barest and

Sa th' gm III ,lOg" (COr ' Illg lor h ,nothin I gs with th' ,125; DK 49),,magllla ' uman b g ess Or mgs, an i "

(nulzIich) ry" Immedi t eIngs, lor th more than a th' nlerpretatlOn 01needs Ile'dwhICh is to a e Or derived

elTuse Or can 109, This kind 01

, e y h say 't S' Sum t'poses th umans t"- ' 1 satislie' Imply th p lOn, physical, ,ough th ,'>rough ' s Or a ' e thin 'Just One th' ' at thing Its prop ,ppeases (b f g IS usefulconSidered ,~~, "Every u:elu~vhe~ they e::~es (Eigensch~ftfledIgt) human

der a daub! thmg uselul en), Marx pro-ed . Such . -are .pamt of' as Iron not SImple notView" . paper J(C, 125' DK ,etc" is to be

, 49), , The analy-10. Karl M

ropaische Verh;x, Zur KnIJkomy. ed, Mauric~~~~~It·1972)~P:;: Po/Hlschen. trans s \tV ~ COntrlbul OkOllOlnle (ya7..f\nska Ion to the C FrankCurt_

ya (New York~'tJqUe of ;7~Main'Eu-. (n1ernatlo 0 alGol Econ-

nal, 1970),27

The Point Is to (Ex)Change It159

sisofCapitol c Ists i 'd I

" onsis s 10 this double viewpoint in the interpretation as

up icity ol a dif] hat i 'Ih' \ di ' , I erence t at mhablts every useful thing, The manner of

15au 0 1VlSlOn 0 d I' 'mode I th r - up [cation 01 the thing is both the target and the

a e analysi It' dvocabI ' IS, alms to ecompose the als_structure (in different

u aries: appear "Itatio d ' ance, simi e, simulation) that gives rise to both qUO-ns an rnonste . . .' .allows it t b rs-a certam mutatIOn, othenng, in the thmg that

quantit " 'C e analyzed from (at least) two viewpoints, "Quality and(1)wh~ a\hi~2S.; DK, 49) make up the two aspects of the analytic point;what b g is, its properties or elements, understood as a matter 01

can e done ith imuch of '\ h ,WI It, what its uses are or could be, and (2) howarticul tic t ere IS, what it is when it's measured, Accounting for the

a IOn of qual't d' ' 'other hi h i i yan quantlty, or the conversIOn of the one mto the

,w IC IS to f h\0 alia I sayar ow quality can be determined reliably enoughMarx'sw air ~omparing and measuring different ones, is the task of

ana YSls I th'"transf "n 's sense at least, we can say that Marx poses the

armahon prabl "h "cannot sa ,em, or t at MarXIsm IS a theory of change, But weExact! y that eIther transformation or change is anything reliable,

but taki y w:at quality and property mean is not immediately evident,physi ng

l

\ ell meamng for granted (interpreting them within a meta-

cs a substa d " fCapital M nce an presence) has been the rule m most readmgs

aextent ~h arx b.egms not with the thing's essence but with its use: to thevalue" Gata thmg can be used, it can be seen (first viewpoint) as a "useina diff ebr~uchswert (C, 126; DK, 50), something that can be inscribedthe u erenllal system 01 valuation, distinguished or specified, based on

seto whi h't'to read' c I IS put." The term Gebrauehswert is not an easy worders b ': CapItol, and its difficulty troubles not only the text's iaterpret-Mar ut \ e text itself,12 Not that its definition is complicated; indeed,or r x ~smatter of fact about the value of use, "The use-value is actualizedDK~:~~~:Itself [verwirklicht siehl only in use or consumption" (C, 126;

, Marx does not say: Every thing, because it is itself and itself

11. Olcthiu

a

caoburse, Marx insists, some thing is used, or rather, some "body," Although a

oneuseddh d k'nothino I an ence be a use vatue its status as a value oes not rna e ltoar eave·t" ' .ofthe co d" suspended in mid-air." On the contrary, "limited by the propertIes

Iimitaliommo ~IY-bodYIWorenkorper], Iuse valuej does not exisI without it," HoWthisbody Wi~ war 5, though, remains unclear throughout the chapter: in any case, this

12 Alt~eturn. and I will return to it.imp~rtant uSfer quotes a note by Marx from 1883: "For me use-value plays a far moreMaspero 1~~e than It has in economics hitherto," Lire "Le Capitol." vol. 1 (ParIs:In my' 8),96; Reading "Capitol" tranS, Ben Brewster (London: Versa, 1979). 79,

argument h' h' ,d t dcategory,tbe en . w IC pursues some hints in the texI about thIS unprece

en egrain not I counIer ~lth ltS troubling difficulty requires gomg aga

mstmucb of the

13 Th OTICy of. Marx mterpretation but of Capitol itself .. e ant b ' 1 I'use. ,0 II utIon 10 the CriIique is more blunt: "a use-value has va ue on Ym

does th' .ne a?d the same use-value can be used in varioUSways" (21),The same? Or

e Iteration alter?

160 Thomas Keenan )Change ItThe Point Is to (Ex

. b dy [Waren-erties of the ~ommod~~~atened with

"limited[bedingt] by the Pro~iS used body IS alwt b from limb andkarper]" (C,126; DK, 50), then nt of being torn 1m

b,ned and recom-

f di emberme , . com Ithepossibilities 0 Ism f afting of bemg t 15 d. 0 h s or 0 gr , b dy par s. . to 0scatteredlike rp eu , lation of 0 sing thmg

accumu . or pres mybinedin some monstrous th most interestmg the fact of econo dButusing them is not even e t an economic fact, d as well as use

withthings.Capital must confronh are are exchange ial [stotflichen]di If ent as t ey, the maten . howassuch:use values, I er titute [bilden] material it IS, .I "cons I t how thmgor consumed. Use va ues ) b t no mat er t d to some

"(C 126' DK 50, u conver e . I fol-content01wealth , .' b ing only in use d? Immediate y18 somethingthat comes into e\ated and exchange ~lized only in u.se,thatcan be not used but accum~. ing use values as re es more readmglowingthe difficult sentence de ~ only term that Posbe considered byMarxpauses-and unleash,~s \:e form of society t~ers of_exchange,~difficultiesthan use value: ~n the material carr

d_ Tauschwerts]I nstitute T "ger es ort orus, [use values] a so c.o . stofflichen ro . I carry-SUPP

value [bIlden sie zuglelch die e values, as matena 'sferred elsewh~reci(c 126' DK 50). It seems that ubs g deported or rran paradoxically tie t' " 'b'l' of em ems. the actransport-the POSSI Iity 'n as use value se. exchange, m .

Thestofflich character of t?~ .~hl':ay be evacuate: ~~or disappr~pr:,atlO:,:tothe possibility its matena I Yor consumptIOn hUIds carries, ItS. OWAsthat appropriates it not for use 't elsewhere. It 0 s'ible relocatIOn. II

b t transfer I . of a pos I e has anot to realize it ut 0 b t place, the site th'ng's use va u. "arevacancy' it holds nothing u a h ge value, the I 'ts "properlies'. 4) of exc an "d "as I happenssoutien matenel (LC, 4 f the empty bo y'h'S effacement thethe materiality of a marker, 0 'nscription. HoWtis that will obsesserased to allow it to bear ;nl\e are the questIOnand what a "carrier" 100 s 1

h f· t chapter.remainder of t e lfS

. I . and only is thealone is different from every other thing. A use va ue IS' . . . . G b hl which is to say,aUse of a thing when and as It IS used (nur rm e rauc , d

. h II f them different anthing has as many use values as 11 as uses, a 0 .

. '. . ib hi Iormuiati implies not an m-even, In pnnclple, irreduct Iy so. T IS ormu a IOn . I

rythi ith ything but simp y anfinity of uses-one cannot do eve mg WI an 1 - f r itunpredictability, a structural openness to new contexts. Instead 0 Im~;ing or determining the thing to an essence or a set of fixed properties, t

Acategory radically de-limits or opens up the thing for different uses. .sSOOnas the proper (value) of the thing is said to be its users), makmgl;tentirely dependent on the particularities of its context(s), w~atever se d-identity it might pretend to have across those different uses ISrupture ,emptied out into its possible iterations. "Such a thing is a whole of manyproperties, and can thus be useful in different ways." The sen~e~cecould just as easily be reversed: because it can be used differently, It ofmany properties, but nothing proper. History, says Marx, is the history ~these "different ways [Seilen] and thus the manifold ways of usmg t ething" (C, 125; DK, 49-50). This potential for radical differentiation ordiversity of things as use values not only distingUishes them 0n.e fro~another but fragments any particular thing "itself" into a multiplICity 0

uses. So it is tautological when Marx states a few paragraphs later that"as use-values, commodities are above all different qualities" (C, 128;DK, 52), but the unstated corollary must be: different even from "the~-selves." Being used differently splits the thing from itself, mani-folds Itonto or Out of itself, since use is alI there is, "really." This reusabIlityprinciple puts the Wholeness of the thing or the propriety of its proper-ties into some question, or at least limits its "unity" to the accumulatedtraces it leaves in its manifold contexts of use.l4 The thing's thinglinessis not in doubt_it is certainly not nothing-but the fact of its realizationin use exposes it to the possibility of all sorts of trouble. If its "usefulnessdoes not hang in mid-air [schwebt nicht in der Luft]," but is rather

14. See JacquesDereida,"SignatureEventContext," in Margins of Philosophy,trans.AlanBass(Chicago,UniversityofChicagoPress,1982),"This is the possibihtyon which Iwant to insist the possibilityof extractionand citationalgraftingwhichbelongsto the structureofeverymark,spokenOrwritten.... Everysign, linguisticornonlingUistic... as a smallor largeunit,can becited,put betweenquotationmarks:therebyit can breakwitheverygivencontext,and engenderinfinitelynewcontexts Inan absolutelynonsaturablefashion.This does not suppose that the mark is validoutsidea context,buton the contrary,only thatthereare contextswithoutany centeror absoluteanchoring.... Whatwould a markbe that could nat be cited? Or onewhoseoriginswouldnot get lost alongthe way?"(320).Onuse, the proper,and thequestionof value (MarxwithNietzscheand Saussure),seealsnDereida,"WhiteMy-thology,Metaphor in the Textof Philosophy,"in Margins,214-19: as well as ]ean-Joseph Goux, Economie et symbolique (paris: Seuil, 1973), esp. 53-148.

. After Readingon ReadingMar~ Attridge et a~k "speculationsH tory ed Dere nd n 13, aUkt Spiva , of IS '. II 40 a Yor .15. SeeGayatriChakravarYnand the QuestIOn30-62, especla/warlds (New ntire

Dereida,"in past-st~~ctu~~:~ersityPress, 1~8~~lue,"in In 0lt~: that puts th:s~bility(Cambridge.Cambn ge the Quesllan a it is use-va pse of the po ness at"ScatleredSpeculationsan "In my readmg !laws us a gh~ lding randomlEco

n-

Routledge,1988),154-75 estlOnand thus a an a way of oars of pohllca s ele-textualchain of ValueIOtaq::'ay be no,~are :~oncept Metap~97,Spivakarg~~eachthateven textuahzatlOn .. ~s .. 162 In Sam n 20 (1986) 88 se it changes ereforehay" "Scattere~specu~~~~ft":nght/lnterven:~~principte be\a':natenal, and~~ldSuseamy in Dernda 5 Texts,. not a transce~den _transcendeoTth8'illogicof use f contex-gantlythat "use-value 15 it lS non " (93) e dd sense 0

s case . hange the 0occasion or heteroge~~~~ IOglCof binary ?X~larity (except lnIncommensurable fo . uality, and partlcvalue of phenomenahty, qtual particulanty).

161

162 Thomas Keenan

Possibilily of Exchange, Power of Abstraction

Exchange value "first of all appears as , , , the relation [Verhiiltnisr'and, of necessity, a quantitative one, the "proportion" (C, 126; DK, 50), IIIwhich Use values exchange for one another, But exchange can take placeonly on the basis of something common to the things (use values) beingexchanged, something shared that allows them to be compared, mea.sured, the proportion Orrelation to be calculated, The general principleof exchange, as Marx writes it, holds that "in two different things, thereexists , , , something common rein Gemeinsames], , , , The two thingsmust therefore be like [gleich) a third, which in itself is neither one northe other" (C, 127; DK, 51), When things are exchanged as com.modities,16 they are related to each other not as use values but as ex.ch~nge values, in terms of something else, This shared third term, theax's of similarity, enables a comparison makes the different uses orth' ,lOgs commensurable, relatable as quantities of the same thing ratherthan different uses or qualitiesN 'eedless to say, the exchange value of a thing could never belong to it

~~ a property, even as a use, since exchange is depropriation; so anB,mmanentexchange_value is a Con!radictio in adjecto" (C, 126; DK, 51),ut more ngorousl' h .' in

y, IS not exc aoge value as such a contradICtIOnterms? Can the d' if . yth 1 erence 10 use be regulated or controlled in any waat would allow exch th I' "h' h se.I ange_ e re ahan or proporbon "In W Ie Uva ues of One kind [A t] h ' hk' d [ r exc ange WIth [gegen] use· values of anot erIn anderer Art]" (C ' .. 'th d " ' 126, DK, 50)-to take place without sacflflCillge etermmmg cha at" ft I't h r c enslic a use value namely its radical contex.Ua I Yor eterogeneity? C '! 1 h " hque t' f h ' ap! a ere meets its structuring question, t eS IOn 0 ow exchan h ' tradically d'ff th' ge, as SUe , IS Possible? How can a system pu'erent lOgs (u )' hthe h h" ses Into relation with one another w enY ave not mg In com . .identity or value "onl "z:non, .slnce they afe defined. acquire a certamthat do not h' thY 10 bemg used or Consumed? How can thingseven ave e stab'l't d' 'dof their use th t d'ff ' I y to efme themsel ves as thin.gs OUtSI e' a I er as much 'th' hselves, be submitted to the rUle w, In t emselves as between them.How can these uses be h of a common system of measurement?exc anged? H 'h '

. ow IS exe ange pOSSIble?16. Recall that a commodity as op d

others" and then "transferred" (at Ie ~oseE to a mere thing, is a thing "produced fortbesis IC, 1311J. But commodity is P~~b:blngels understood it, ~nhis inserted ~a.ren-term and not a transcendental One not .Y ~orbaCCuratelya hIstorical (or polItIcal)inherent in the "produced for" con'str :!lIlP{ ecause of the problems of intentionalways a possibility and thus cannot ~~ IO~ butmo~ecru~ially since (1) exchange ismultiplicity and contingency of use alr~dY . e arOided !Ike an accident and (2J thefrom exchange at the putative origin. Y Jrnples a dlVergence indistinguishable

The Point Is to (Ex)Change ~

ith its answers,ident w, , f' , al sis becomes ev , , tanding 10 orTheradicalityof Capital s an bstit tion of one thing s s hang

eis to

' tt r of su s I unun , I If excFirstexchangeISa rna e {nc aimilar or equa ' xchange-' 'f ethlllg Sl as eanother,on the basis a sam ity: things "must, , ' zb ]" (C 127;, ' , necess" ( setz nr ,occur,this substitution is a bl for each other er Ith itself (its

values,be substitutable or replacea :t into relation even w~hich there.DK, 51). Thus, the thing must bef p any different thlOgS, d'ation irn-

. , b h ged or 10 f the me Iuses),smce It can e exc an , t ble: by virtue a thi "express11 substitu a , f a 109forehave to be mutua y , change values a b xchanged

. "th varIOUS ex th' can e epliedby substitution, e lch ] "17 If a 109 t be only a1 {' Glelc es ' 1 emussomethingalike or equa ern then its exchange va u of something

formanydifferent other things, f l'' (C 127; DK, 51) f exchangehei gs arm, hihty a"formof expression {Ersc emun lf The substituta I i t" occur in

' hi useu. , h "muselse,something like the t 109, f imilarity, whic , t necessaryvalues,organized around an aXIS~ ~ a previoUS and )U~ ~seduction,"exchange,is thus shown to depe~ ~ useful thing, calle ; the "man-operation,effected on the level a t ;ithout the reduct~on 0Gleichnung)Nosubstitution without reduclion'h elation or equatlOn

f( ebe like or

thi " For t e r there orifoldways of using the mg. bstl'tuted "must h ne nor the' h gedorsu uhcr t eOtohappen, the thmgs exc an d for itself is nel th s be reduc-

equalto [gleich] a third, which ~n a:xchange.value, must ]"~C 127; DK,other,Each of them, insofar as It,lS D 'tie reduzierbar sem 'ibleto this third [mujl also auf dl~sd n st be, , ht as well

' the thlr mu we mig51), Where the thmg was, 'the first sentence, f the thing intoThe reduction-which, echOing d structuration a eal as if

ilion or e ht to rev ,call the analysis, the decompos ['f there are any)-oug xchangeableitsmost elementary components I

hammon core that e be put into

'f' t'on t e c h y can Iby distillation or pun Ica I, 'of which tell d a daub e' the baSIS I be ca ethings share, the likeness ~n '8 What can on Y

relation, measured proportIOnally,

, h hesitates amongd ' glele r pagef 11the war SInd 'nto the s IP If1 tion 0 a entere I , trope17 Throughout this essay, my trans a m arison has been conomy of the but in

similar, (a)hke, and equal. .As soon,ast~~ aberrancy and the :r exchange the~'rossingto equallon is hard to reslst: that IS need to compare a,'lable for the

h uld be no me avthIngs were the same, t ere wo omething of the, sa d difference. " simpleorder to be related, they must tave s diation of identlty an for example: ~he areas

thus, Glelchheit. alIke, as t e n:e d examples here: e and compare 'tself IS

18 The text is free wi~h analog~~sa~n order t~determ~hen the tri~~~e ;27; DK,geometflcal example wlllillustr?teth up into triangles, t be reduced ( 'bihty orof all rectilinear figures we splIt ej change values mU~ionof exchang~~ "In thereduced ., In the same way lEbenso ~:sthe whole ~ues sed by it as we b drawn51). "In the same way," it says-anf f the tnangles IS POnyanalogy, c~ e

ommonsubstitutability posed m the examp e 0 that the analogyci a d to somethmg Chat is atsame way" already presumes of course h two can be re uc~.s is precisely wbetween economics and geometry, tdhatt emething eben But I

b'dcetosoto both, exchanged by emg re u

163

164 Thomas Keenan

b . ti f somethingrhetorical gesture "must" take place here: the su stitu IOn 0 ..

d h tr t ed like similefor something else, based on resemblance an t us s uc ur .di . h t . r reduction hasor metaphor, can occur only on the con ition t a a pno hi

. h "oart" of the t mgoccurred within the things exchanged, by whic one parh b. f h" hole." '" kn w this structure asas een made to stand In or t e woe. vve 0 .

. f h I substitution ISsynecdoche, and Capital suggests that Its part- or-w 0 e . hpresupposed within any thing as the condition of its exchange WIt

. tl contex-something other. What is this whole? Use value? That stnc y ?

tual, singular, pragmatic difference that defines value only in use. Canuse provide the basic Core of commensurability? dAs use values, things are completely different from each other a~

from themselves, different with every use or context [rendering even eterm "themselves" problematic). Marx repeatedly insists on the necessr-ty of the reduction, but as for its condition of possibility, things a~e alittle more difficult. A hint earlier in the chapter might have seeme .t~suggest that the thingly properties of the thing could provide the thirterm: the thing's status as a use value is not simply ideal or spiritual. aswe read, and does not make it nothing or leave it hanging in the air but IS,rather, dependent on "the properties of the commodity-body [Waren-karperl" (C, 126; DK, 50). Do these properties of the commodity as abody make exchange Possible, provide the irreducible ground or thebasic part On which economy is bUilt? Simply, no. "This somethmgcommon cannot be a geometrical, physical, chemical or other naturalproperty of commodities. Their bodily properties come into consider-ation only to the extent that they make them useful, as use-values" (C,127; DK, 51), and have no role in exchange. Things are bodies only muse, not a priori or as some kind of essential base. Where exchanging IS

the task, the commodity body functions as heterogeneously as "its"manifold uses. There is no property common to things, no use, not evenbeing a thing (not even, as Marx will show, the labor required to bringthem into the economic field). Because use values are at least as differentfrom one another as things are, the common term could not be a propertyof the thing as a body. The question of the possibility of exchange takesanother step backward: if what is common cannot be a natural property,or a use, then how is it produced or where does it come from? Capitalrepeats: How is exchange Possible?

Marx answers_in the spirit of the necessity on which he has becomeaccustomed to insisting_with a single word, abstraction. He calls it"obvious" and says that it simply happens, regardless of its possibility.

stakein the analysis,and in theexamplelanguagealreadyptayswilh the termshesidethe "argument," taking everything for granted.

The Point Is to (Ex)Change It

their use-value is. . h that abstraction from ommodities" (C,

"it isobvious[augenschemhc] hange relation of CIte Abstrak-t izes the axe li g tranS a .preciselywhat charac en and Edward Ave m. e the operatIOn

127'DK 51-52). Samuel Mooreb . e but correct, sine neity of use' , , "19_a USIV . al heterogetionas "total abstraction 11 The radic . is to be ac-

. if it i to be at a . rcommgmustbe totalizmg I I IS duction or ove ti n that mas-d d that re " bstrac 10valuesmust be reduce ,an di I ("total ) a use value,

b equally ra ica . t' n of every " bcomplishedonly y an th differenlJa 10 .) "must esivelyand systematically effaces ey use (property, thmg

erelation is

.ff of ever xchangeverything. The dl erence . And every e f difference,f bstractlOn. th face 0dissolvedby the force 0 a hi bstraction. In e

lossible (augen-. lormsj ttns e ariypcharactemed by (per or .., ot necess

. d n If It IS nabstractionis require eve . f likeness orth serVlce 0 rscheinlich).20 ifference in e 'no difference 0

Abstraction is the erasure of d b n says, 'there IS erts the thmg"A old Bar 0 ti n conv hi gequality (Gleichheit): s I'" Abstrac 10 ." Into somet in

. . f equal va ue. . "withm I n-distinction In things 0 1 transforms It ly different quafrom Usevalue to exchange va alu [things] can be on value" (C, 128;exchangeable."As exchange-va ues, [kein Atom] of use- e irreducible.lilies and thus contain not an a~omlas the differences ,,:,err

aseuse values

' . radica "frst eOK 52) The abstraction IS as dities must I d . ed third term,' . f ommo f th eslfli it happens, the exchange o. c the emergenceo efthe difference--:;

tothe subatomic level, allowmg tt r eradicatlOn 0 values as such.but what could survive the u lety_that defines udsen the basiS of It

'n qua I h ge 0 f e-difference in use, differer,'ce I t are (to be) exc. an t an atom 0 us.Whatis left over if the thmgs tha on] "contam no d what it was. IS

I . h or comm . d out, an h bodIly(something alike, g elC, has been emptle also from teevalue"? The thing, obviously, alue we abstract It 'ISno longer tabl

't use-v, lue 'butesgone:"If we abstract from I s ke it into a use-vaf't~ sensible attn DK

constituents and forms that maseful thing. All 0 IelOschtJ" (C, 128; a;or house or yarn or e~en aa~e extinguished [OUS;nse_less. Noth~ng:are[sinnlich Beschaffenhelten\ s thing-less, and Sttbe fact that thmg 'gbt52). The subato~ic is ,:,se-e%:. And certainl~ n~a tbat tbe leftover:' theleast, no thing-IS left, It ~e ly dismisses the Id "Nor is it any Ion: ctiveproducts of labor. Marx ~,m~g been worked on. determined pro uvaluebe some attribute of ItS aVI y or spinning or any d singular as usedl'sap_

O' masonr . ular an de toproduct of jommg or . 'ust as partlc. hich is malabor," because, first, lab~r I:~at differentiatIOn w and Ed-and, second, it is preCIse Y ans. samuel Moore

d rick Engels, tr must over1 1 ed. Fre e 967) 37. f the word19. Karl Marx, Capital.yvo rk: 'International, lhepr~liferati~n 0tf. [1887" New 0 . for t es Itse .ward Avelmg '. a certain sense, ssity iInpOS

20. Which accounts, lOt. possibilitY, nece. th face 0 1mthese pages: 10 e

165

166 Thomas Keenan

. t f s of labor van-pear by the abstraction. "The differentiated concre e orm b II. . h h longer, ut are aish [verschwmden], they differ from eac at er no I b "(C

I b b tr t human a or ,reduced to the same [gleiche] human a or, a s ac f h bh ureotea-128' DK 52). Which is only to say that under t e press

' , d h . I b r become com-straction necessitated by exchange, people an t eir a amodities tOO.21(And this humanity will return.] lbl

' f i k xchange pOSSI e,What is required of this abstraction? I It IS to rna e e h ed lt d it? To answer t eswhat does it need to accomplish, and how oes 1 a 1 . t to

II ' t t e and attempquestions we need to look more carefu y at Its s rue ur d" .'. , h t lace' similitude andlstmgUlsh It from the terms It as come a rep '. Cepit 1's

reduction. One hint that may help has been lying around smce opi ~ Ifirst sentence. Pursuing Marx's footnote to the Kritik, the sentence

d.oty-

, d "E ry comma 1 ,lowing the phrase quoted from that earlIer text rea s: ve " Thehowever, has a two-fold aspect: use-value and exchange-value. "Offootnote there refers the reader to Aristotle's Politics, and quotes:

. the proper,everything which we possess there are two uses: ... one IS .

' . Ie a shoe ISand the other the Improper or secondary use of It. For exampie, hused for wear and is used for exchange."22 In the same way, a word asits proper meaning(s) and its figurative or derived senses, relations;which it crosses over with other meanings, The figurative ones, it is sal,consist in exchanging what is proper to one word with another word: 10

substituting, borroWing, trading, carrying, transporting, even ste~h:1properti~s. But these exchanges depend on the presence, of a~ axis d.substllutlOn, a common term across which the crossmg IS articulateDifferent tropes are defined by the different axes of comparison accord-ing to which their substitutions are organized. . IMarx had first seemed to propose that economic exchange was sImp Y

a malter of metaphor, of exchange based on resemblance or similitude(Gleichheit). But in order to produce this similarity in the absence of anystable or reliable set of properties common (similar) to all things, the

21. OtherWise, the whole question would be begged and the critical power of theanalysis forgone. The common generality of human labor. as of use value, is what theanalysis refuses to take for granted. When the French translation risks "lIne restedone plus que Ie C8racli';tre commun de Ces travaux" (Let 46), it cedes to the temptationotherwise resisted: if this commonality or generality could be found. and given thingsOr labors seen as particular species of them, then exchange would not be a problem.But it is precisely the status of this "common" term that is in question, that is at stakein the analysis. Thus Marx, later in Capitol, can raise the "possibility of crises"stemming from tbe asymmetry in "the antithetical phases of the metamorphosis of thecommodity." namely, "the personification of things and the reification of persons" (C209; DK, 128).

22. Marx, Contribution fo the Critique, 270.

The Point Is to (Ex)Change ~

. "reduction"th t certam tk and propose a a e values, so as aanalysiswasobliged to backtra~ t marks things as us tructured like aoccurredwithin the diversltyth, a This reduction was s part could be

e mg. mrnon thbringthemdown to some on b t'tution. Yet no co b k to reveal ef hole su SId fu ther acsynecdoche,a part- or-w I sis steppe r

determinedeither, and the ,~nba;action."23 has argued that, atoperationof what it called aStian 1Paul de Man. to think of theWhatis the structure of abstrac "iormed by ceasmgt think only of

leastfor Condillac, abstractions da::tinguished in ordhert ~ccording to deb hi h things are ture t a , . sub-properties y w IC ". it is a struc d f' ition [i.e..

thosequalities in which they a~~o; in its classi~al e ~erre Fontanier,Man,is "precisely that of met e] "24 The rhetorICIan, n was a synec-

blance . bstractIO hen-stitution based on resem thought a "compred discours, but on h gethough in Les figures u resemblance d chal exc an

' .. b ed not on " . synec a therdoche, a substitution as f r the concrete ISa ther object toge,sion "25"Taking the abstract a b the name of ana . tence or the Idea

. biect y h eXIS "26in that it "designates an a J such that t e. f the other.t a whole, . , or Idea a . haswithwhich it forms a se , 'the existence . abstractIOn

of one finds itself compriseddmf'nitions will do, smceted the efforts of,. f these e 1 hat reSIS someEVidently,neither a ccomplish w to take place, t

arrivedon the scene in order cdc he. For exchange between differend synec oc 'callan ed orprecisely,metaphor an I of commum . t d or open

I't r channe b lnven eaxis of commona 1 y ~ t uses must e d to do it.things and within dI,ffere~straction is supposebreached. Something Iike a

"of value. 1analySiS . 1's "tropolOgiC~The Philosophica_

' ended reading ofM~~~ny}in "Marx e HIstOrical Ima~23 SeeHayden WhIte Sexty to synecdoc~e ~?in MetahistOry/~ University Pr;g2'

(frommetaphor to metonyu;,tonymIcal Mo ~' ore. Johns Ho,? '~ CapItal, 287- romDefen5Bof Hi5tory In ~~e::;ury Europe (Balt:l of AnalySIS, e~as the base hnt ;aluemohon In NIneteenth e "The BaSICMo of value "rv eductIOn5] 0 du-1973), 281-330, especI~liy,hat "the lahor ~~or~he tropOlogicai r "isolated indI~~theAlthoughWhite condu es fons (prOVide y Marx things are to one another, tesswhich all erroneous concep I he thinks that for tial relation~hiP werful neverthecan be transcended," b';:'~U;ear to bear no e~s~~es Involved 15po Autumnahhes, particul~rs wh~c stfucture of the exc a "tIcal InqulfY 5 (ndillac'sreadIng of the lrguratr e f Metaphor, CrI

thesectIOn lD Co s" See

(29B,293). "The EPistemolc;r;e Man 15quotirw d "Des abstraft:~; 1973),24. Paul de Man'ft bbreviated E, ines (1746) cta 8

0le(Pans. Ga I I 'on "the

1978), 13-30, here~ :rc~nnmssonces h~n:~heologle d~ n:ndillac III CapJto ,ESSOIsurl'ongme e s Derrida, La . interestmC edCondlllac's ESSOl in Jacq~eMarxhad a certal~alue" (70-71), fgures du discours,174 As Derrida pom~:e~~;lueand exchd~~~::action,"in r:~9;.confuSiOn between. "Synecdoque arion, 19771, 925 PIerre Fontamer, 830 Pans Flamm

Gerard Genette (1821-1 ,26. Ibid., 87.

-

167

168 Thomas Keenan

Ghosts of an Ana 'lySIS, or Humanity

So we can retis b ' urn to our idia VIOUSthat it ' gui ing question' H 'occur on th b ,IS characterized b b' ow ISexchange possible? Ite asis of y a straction D hmakers? What ' something besides "oes t e abstraction

ous in its te IS responsible for exch the thing or its uses and itsmporalit ' anga? Ma' Iwhat must ha e Y.masmuch as it "finall " rx s exp anation is curi-

order to let it P~a n (red~ction) has a!read y seems to presuppose thatchange w ppen [likeness a ' y happened [abstraction) in

• e can" " r equality) Afanswer goes f see what will obvi I ' ter the fact of the ex-as ollo VlOUSy h h dIf every thin s ,ws, ave a to happen, The

look at the re~idenslble is extinguishedoccurs does it ue of the labor-prod ,and labor has vanisbed "let us

R" I s dut ucts "Th' , •eSlduum ' Y. only to th ,e Impossible abstraction

or a resrd ( e extent that' Iname to this I f u C, 128; LC 46' DK It eaves a remainder ar duct! etoveroft " .52) Md'e uction of d'ff otal abstract' ,arx un ertakes to giveaproductive la~ e~ence. after the vani~n, What remains after the radicalspectral, haunt~~' Its name is ghostS mg of aU "atoms" of use value orOver but this ver g, surviVing objecti;itge~,penshge Gegenstiindlichkeil,lert] of undiffere~tsame [dIesel be] ghos~ T~,ere IS nothing of them leftr~lation between (~:tedhuman labor," T~ a jectivity, a mere jelly [Gal,sllmllarity hithert within) things a ISphantom makes possible theong a unavail b ruses gra t th" ~r a thing or a lab 1 a Ie. precisely b' n s e common axis ofeac one of them Or,Once abstracted ecause it is a ghost and nOsame h campI t I • as Ma ' Fp antomat' e e Y resembl rx s rench text puts itmorph ' Ie realit [ es the th •

based mto I'd ' Y une me'm a er, They all have theor" (L enllc I e re l' e

P

' ,C. 46), In the ,a sUblimes sam I a It fantomatique], Meta-omt IS t ngor of th • P es of th 'Th ,0 exchange the e abstractio e same mdistinct la-

mak e hmmg of these ghm, n. only ghosts survive, Thee Possible th osts is scongeal d e operatio pectacular Th

havin :0residue, Hecausentthat produces ;he::y

return just in time to"th g phenomenal hey resembl • that leaves them as its

emselves " th or sen 'bl e one anothoccur, Thank e Operation of Sl e features b ~r. as all ghosts do,met-the ver s to their resemb~hlch they are ;h:h,ch to distinguishghosts no y exchange that I ance. the cond't' remnant can fmally

• exchan' eave th 1 lOns of hprehension ge. smce ne' s ern, ato exc ange areof Use Valu~syneCdoche) cOUI~t:r resemblanc::':::s., behind, Withoutterm could b-which is why M taken for grante mdltude) nor com-or as a use_:a~~und that belong:.';x turned to absi~:I,ven the volatilityleaves the h e--which is wh properly to th han, No common

g osts as its rernaind y Marx turned e commodity as a thinger, But th to ghe abstract' ,osts, Abstraction

IOn IS the exchange ("it

The Point Is to (Ex)Change It169

is~bviousthat abstraction from their use-value is precisely what charac-lenzesthe exchange relation of commodities"), Something happens inorderto let exchange happen, but it seems to happen in the exchangeItself,, , ,Thedetour through the rhetoric of tropes now turns out to have been

essential. Is this kind of substitution structured like a typical trope. like:etaphoror synecdoche. a symmetrical crossing of properties? Or doese spectralremnant suggest that a certain asymmetry is built into theso-calledexcha ' h " f ' ' fnge, SInce t e prior eXIstence a propertIes or an axis 0cObffilffianalityby which they are to be related is what is most question-a ehere'Th b I, e a anced and closed chiasmus of the trope seemS to openoutofitself t I _' ' - h, ff empora ly and spatIally III the abstractlOn: the ghost IS t ems aceableexcess. the oddly material if nonsensible "jelly" of a rem-:ant that resists incorporation. and the condition of possibility for theT~erallonthat must already have happened in order to leave it behind,themaneuver succeeds las it does all the time] only to the extent that

the commodity as ghost is a figure for the most rigoroUS of reductions,eradical j" _ - h

rid e irmnation of all traces of use value. with one exceptlOn: t e

eSlueofth b ' 'gh e a straction itself, That enables the thing to surVive. as a

Sost'handnot just disappear. and this residue serves as the "common

ometm" .ne ' g on which exchange can be based because it marks. however

d'fgf~llvelY,all commodities with the trace of resemblance, What remainsI lCulttod 'd 'al d eCI e ISwhere the ghosts come (back) from, Were they therewre~Y.or did they come into being in the exchange? The operationcaorbS to the extent that this is the difference tbat cannot be told, Wbatus~ e told, now, in the realm of ghosts. is this: "All these things now tell52}s that m their production, _ ' human labor is piled up" (C. 128; DK.

ct spe~ter is haunting this analysis. the specter of humanity, If ex-h ange IS possible, is it thanks to humanity. or more precisely. to theellman lahor embedded in commodities as the source of their value?ertamly th' , ' ' ,'he IS view has been attributed to Capital. espeCially III t euncounter witb sentences like this one. a paragraph after the ghost: "Ase-value a d I b -ab' " r a goo has value only because abstract human a or IS

C

)edChhedor materialized in it" (C 129' DK 53), But before endorsing orOn . • ' ,emlllng some labor theory of value we need to ask about the statusnotsomu h fl b • -'it c a a or as of the abstraction. the abstractlOn that IS human-y,Much later in the first chapter Marx returns to the question of the

pOSSibleimpossibility of exchange long after it should have been laid torest b th •Y e ghosts or the jelly, In accounting for the development ofmoney. Marx has been led back to Aristotle. the first analyst of value.

170 Thomos Keenan

who in the Nicomochean Ethics had argued that exchange, in principle,has no basis. How is exchange possible?27 What common term couldthere be between different objects? If, in Aristotle's example, a house isto be exchanged for (is worth as much as) five beds, then the one and theother must be "made qualitatively alike [gleichgesetztj," but since theyare phenomenally or "sensibly different things," the two "could not herelatable ': each other as commensurable magnitudes without such anessentIal likeness [Wesengleichheitj." And that's impossible. Aristotleconcludes, quotes Marx, that

"there can be no exchange without likeness [GleichheitJ, and no like-ness without commensurability .... It is, however, in truth. impossible[um~6g!ichJ for such heterogeneous things to be commensurable," i.e,qualitatIvely alike. This making-alike [Gleichsetzungj can only besometh' f ." l~g orergn to the true nature of the things, and thus only arnakesh~,ft for practical purposes [Notbehelf [iu: dos praktische Be-dUrfn,sJ. (C, 151; DK, 73-74)'8

In a certain sense M h eh ' arx agrees. The analysis has shown that exc angas no secure tran d If tbill tnth seen enta oundation, no condition of pOSSI 1 ity 1e strong sense btl h . d ltsid ' u on y w at IScalled the power of abstraction an Iresi ua the ghost ~ t . f i .

f . s. e It-abstraction exchange-happens even i It ISorelgn (etwa F d ' '.bl " . s. rem es), especially to the "true nature" and the "sensl-e partIculanty of th' fand h . mgs. I there is a difficulty it is with use; natureP enomenality b I . I .cal im d' are Yget mto the act, and certainly not as onto ogl-pe Iments. Aristotle h d Imatic, that all thin s . a argued that exchange was pure y prag-they w . d g were likened or measured simply by the fact thatere m emand Dem d' . " . . ." hmoney is call d .' an S SIgnIfIer IS money, whIch 15 w Yexist by naturee b ~zmjsmQ (customary currency), because it does notconventionality ud y Custom [nomos)" (NE, 5.5.11, 285). But the fact of

oes not expla' th· . Iunable to det . d m e conventJOn. Why was Anstot eermIne as Glei h hin truth, eXist"_a d f c e_ e says, quotes Marx, that it "cannot,

n arced to aband th' '. . hout naming it but I . On e InvestlgatlOD of value WIt _on Ymarkmg it . hmissing name: "And 't ' s practlcal place? Marx supplies t e

I IS-human labor" (C, 151; DK, 74).

27. 0r:t the question of the possibili. ,extraord.mary chapter "The Transcend ly of eXGh~nge In Capital, see Michel Henry 5Une philosophie de l'~conornje (Par' e'6a11lC?eneslsof the Economy," in Marx, vol. 2:phyof Human Reality, trans. Kathle:~:Ma Imar~, 1976),138_207; Marx: A Philoso-Press, 1983), 190-223. CLaughhn (Bloomington: Indiana University28, See Aristotle, Nicomachean Eth' tr

~ol.~~(Ca.mbridge: Harvard universityl~~'esSa~~7~J'~ack.ham,Loeb Classical Library,er a revlaled NE; the quoted passage is at '5 5 1 ' oak 5, chap. 5, 283-289. hereaf-

.. 4,287.

The Point Is to (Ex)Change It

I I"this-strictlyd [herous esen dAristotlethough was "unable to rea . the likeness an" flue expreSSIOn, huspeaking,unable: "The secret 0 va - d 'nsofar as they are -

. d f] I b r because an 1 til the can-equivalenceof all [kin s 0 a a '_ d [ tziffertl un 1 . dmanlaborin general, could not bedeclph~r~he~t7 had already acqUIrecept ofhuman similarity or equality [Gleic rteilj" [C, 152; DK.H).thepermanenceof a popular prejudice [Volksvor~ ply: until all believe

lain thmgs SIlO uld orThisargumentwould seem to exp Aristotle. woI no one even I'ghten-theyare the same as everyone erse, • h humanist en I

able W en ible tocouldthink to consider them compar . flue becomes pOSSI .menthas arrived, a human[-Iabor) theory a vtanee ruins the humanlhst

The next sen e . d' of t eread.ButMarx does not say so. h pular preJu IceI I "But [t e po . ty whereassumptionsat their deepest eve: lbl nly in a socie _. I' f' t pOSSI eo" (C 152,conceptof common humamty IS IfS of the labor-product ,

Ihecommodityform is the general formtble be-DK, 74-emphasis added). . exchange is pOSSI _

Tryto summarize this extraordinary move"t

surviving in the thmgson humam Y I conven-causeabstraction reveals the comm . I impossible and on Y_ ble to

eXchanged.Aristotle thought it was strict Yh nity was not a~aIla f thti f roman urna , non 0 eional because the concept a a co lth the dommahim.But that humanity itself arrives o:,ly WI . . at-commodityform. Which it makes possI~I~~ happens all the nme: N reOr rather it remains impossible, an 1 y placeholder, or mO

ht

' d rf' emergenc . stice t abehelffiir das praktische Be ii ms, h J'udgment or the JU ders. " f h can be t e '1) that renpreCIsely,preJudIce. Be are t ere . dice (Vorurtel jU-

halancesand exchanges, there is the prefJu the law of exchanged' prfee,,_

th able Be ore - d' e an 1e parties or things commensur· ular preJu IC , lardice. So, if there is humanity, it is aSb;.io~t is thanks to the POPt~ngchangeoccurs, in spite of its impos.sI I.tIYifan effect of the abstrac tha~

h GI ichhelt-I se Wb'ch meansprejudiceof menschlic en e f modities. 1 Here,. . , hange 0 com d ice versa.eVIscerating,spectrahzmg exc schlich, an v I'ke andth t· would be men d b tract a 1ano er name for gespens Ig h mptyan as'

\l h H nity as suc ,e d'tya umans are ghosts. uma f the commo I· "theoreti-equal [gleich), is indistinguishable ro~ at a humanism butfa pI'talismMarXism IS n 1 . 0 caAsLouis Althusser wrote,. . the critical ana ySIS 't the ab-cal anti·humanism."29 MarXIsm l,S humanism, Hum~nl y, essity ofprecisely insofar as capitalism IS a the pragmatiC nec

.d that namesstraction, is the ghostly reSI ue

171

(Paris: Maspero:. umanisme," in pour ~~r~rewster (London.

29. Louis Althusser, "Marxlsme. et ~ in For Marx, trans. B1967), 236; "Marxism and Humanism,Verso, 1979), 229.

172Thomas Keenan

likeness in exchanghost-to b ge, To be alike is to be bMarx e human, or a comrnodjj 3 a stract, which is to say,to bea

says as much I y. 0as the seco d and spells out its l" In part of Capital po Itica stakes many pages later

comes to a close.

The sphere ofinnate h . " , commodity exchan "Equalit uman rights [Menschenre ge", IS in fact a true Eden ofand selre~G~~1Chheit],Property, and t:Here alone rule Freedom,their 0 fr a commodity e g I b am. Freedom! Because buyer

wn e 'I • " a or-pothe I e WI I. They contr t wer, are determined only byaw.. E I' ac as free pecommodit " qua ity! Because th I rsons, who are equal before

280' DK /-owners, and they ex h ey re ate to each ather only as, ,89-90) c ange equivalent for equivalent. [C,

Th~s, Gayatri Spivakcapltalism,"31 Th has argued, "the' ,ness, as bal e commodity str tre IS,no phIlosophical injustice in

tho ance sy uc ure IS th id If' ,Ings "H ,mmetry re '. e 1 ea 0 justice as fair-

, urnan ri hts" ,clproclty b tmeet, like thi g ts means that b f ' e ween humans as well asmgs as ' e ore the I fAt least ent ' equal (gleich) f aw 0 exchange, humans

dPtstemcl ' , ree resp lble ge is not th oglCaliy, Whe b ' onsi e." as abstract.e only f. n a stractiexample, on the ~rce mvolved Wh o~s meet, though, knowl-

try of balance p qU,estlOnof the len~th ;n capItalist meets worker-forpolitical strugg;:'v~,~,;;, no guarantees :n~~~ working day-the symme-against right b th ere is here th' f e exchange is opened onto~xchange [b~id: gl eq~aliy bearing t~:e orel an antinomy, of right and2esiegit], Between ere miij3ig durch do s~a of the law of commodity-49)32 equal rights, force [~ esetz des Warenaustausches

ewalt] decides," (C, 344; DK,

look-alikes or A' ugenschein

To recapitulate Co 'analysis or abs " PItal performtractIon, of th s the analyt'30. Marxis thu e system of co Ie decomposition the

man is I'k s speaking tr' mmodit .mirror, nlo: athe c~mmodily.~sl~ly w?en he writ. y exchange into itsreeag . sa Flchtean h"I e neither es In a footn t "as a r:~ze~besPiegeltJ hir!:s Ilfo~opherWho ~nters into the w~rl~.In a certain sense,144 n. ~. Dough his reJatio: t In another ma:~;~Y'Ich bin Ieh: ~n Poss?ssion of a

31. SPi~ak.K,.~7n. 18). 0 the man Paul as h.e ~an Peter onl filan fust sees or50. . Some Concept M IS lIkeness [als y.re ates to himself32 S . etaphors .. 96 seJnesgieichenl" (C

. plVak ' ; and c .also He quotes the fin I ompare S inry, Marx, 194 a sentence here' , P Yak. "Speculations ..

. in 'Som 'e Concept Metaphors," 94. See

The Point Is to (Ex)Change It

basicunitand of that unit into the duplicity of use value ("quality") andexchangevalue ["quantity"). As use value, the thing differs irreduciblyfromeverythingelse, including other uses of the "same" thing, But thething , b .carnes, ears the burden of, exchange value, which is to say Ittransportsthe possibility of being transported, converted into or tradedforsomethingelse. Yet nothing immanent in the thing as thing makessuchexchange possible: there is no Ding-an-sich in exchange, neitheruse nor nature. Some mediation "must" intervene, some redefinition ormetamorphosis within the things which provides the axis of re-se~blanceor comparison [Vergleich) around which they may exchange,ThISpreparatory operation within this perestroika or Gleichsschaltungatthe interior of the thing, is called abstraction. It "characterizes" theexchange.In abstraction-the operation that readies the things for ex-change,that makes them exchangeable, and that exchanges them-not anatomofuse value remains, Nor is anything left of the labor that has pro-ducedthem, no thing but a strange "residue," There is nothing left overhutghosts (gespenslige Gegenstandlichkeit), as practical possibility-Orshould '. we say, as necessity., This haunting can only be thought as the difficult (simultaneous andlmp?ssible) movement of remembering and forgetting, inscribing anderasing, the singular or the different. On the one hand, difference is thereasonfor economy; were things not different, there would be no possi-bleinterest in exchange: "Were each of the things not qualitatively differ-entuse-values and hence not the products of qualitatively different use-ful labors, they would be utterly incapable of encountering each other!gegeniibertreten] as commodities" (C, 132; DK, 56), Exchanging some-thl,ngfor itself would be tautology, not economy, "Heterogeneous [ver-shledenartigenj use-values" (C, 132; DK, 56) are the condition of the~ystem-no substitution of identicals, only of different things in differ-lng uses.But this difference the raison d'etre of the system, is also its target.

"Ladifference de leu~s valeurs d'usage est eliminee, de meme disparall"[Le, 52): "Just as in the [exchange] values coat and linen there 's ab-straction from the difference of their use-values, so in the labors repre-sented in these values, from the difference of their useful forms" [C, 135;DK, 59), Only when this abstraction occurs, an abstraction from usevallIe as from human labor, can things come into relation as [exchange)values [C, 136; DK, 60). The only "labor theory of value"33 here reads asfollows: "It is in this property of being similar or abstract [glelch

" 33, As Althusser points out in Rending "Cnpilo!," Marx wrote quite dir~,cltYin ~~eCritique of the Gotha Programme": "Labor is not the source of all we~lth {171}. nCapitol," writes Althusser "Marx breaks with the idealism of labor ... as the essence

of man'" (172). '

174 Thomas Keenan

, , , oder obstrakt](C, ~37; DK, 61 human labor that [laboparllcular labor ~ and only insofar as it ,rJ forms commodity's value"rather than "lab U~,lts ghostly residue B IS abstract(ed) and no longerdefinition of h or, which is to say 'I'kut the emphasis is on "human"Th' umamty b ' a I e becau bIS Doppelch -a stract si 'I se a stract. This is the

abstractio ,arakter of th ' rru ar, spectral.n-dIff e comrnoritj:chan

ged, com~::t ~nd alike, used an~~ requires the ghosting of an

e coarsely sensl'bl Illes have no mat 'l~changed. Insofar as theyarenatu I e obt ena ity "1 di, ra material [N jecllvity of th ,n irect opposition toIlltdeed ghostly "Yi aturstoffJ enters inetocth°mmoditybody, not an atomofreOll . Qum' euob' ..mer] a sin I ay twist and t jecttvity as values" It isva~~e-thing" (C~le3~~~;Odity as YO~r:i~C::-~henund wenden, tou;neretrn at (Commodit)' ,55; DK, 62) , It remains ungraspable as aonplace b y exchan e' '

force Th' ut the self-e' g IS not natur I bex ha e analytic d vIdence of th l' . ~ ut social is a com-c ange' ecornune! , e po Itiuizfn I' h' 'into Is not sim I posltlon of th h g c IC e obscures Its

Exchexchange relatl' p y Possible, that th e t ing of value suggests thatang . ons h e entry f d 'ffin ord e IS at best pr as no transcend t 1 a I erent things-uses

house er to eliminate athgmaticand thus aben a guarantee or basis at all, and th em I ' errant seek! 'Their sub ' ey have noth.' re~a Illlg them to ' , . ng out dIfferences

return Shtuhon occ Ing 10 common' obhvlOn. A coat is not a!assbaras ghosts, diffeUrs only when th ,Just as Achilles is not a lion

" 0 rent but I' e uses or thOAIthou h' r more pre ' a Ike to th mgs disappear and, g it Clseiy e exte t thhon on f' receives't ' words, n at they are all un·

etlshis I s sharat stake .L m, the an I ' pest them t' ,. uU'ough a Yhc a IzatlOn I'SUflng the ' out the th' d necessity of th' I' on y m the final sec-

ghImpli' Ir se t' IS mgu' t'osting ab cahons of h c Ion of th f' IS ICturn is what is

that comm~~action, Marx ~ e theory of t~e '~St chapter, Carefully mea-something t Ity eXchange uggests that the houbled character and thelich) b 0 see 0 f IS not g ost me. a out it r eel. It h something" ans, paradoxically,Inte ' nothi' as noth· VISIblerpreted real' ng 'real" Ing sensibl ' not sensory, nots,ence/appeara Ity (within as philosophy e or phenomenal (sinn-hon nce r I' oppo .. or po]"t', expressi ' ea IIdeal slllons s h I Ical economy hasThe I'k on, sub t" ' etc,) 34 E Uc ashu I e-ness of th s ItUtion, and' xchange is a matter/spirit, es-e man hands. So e ghosts is in .h:nce sOmeth' matter of significa-mphasis faUs on t;:'h;n two thi:lslble, untouc~~~/hat must be read,

e Ike rather tKs, Such as value e:, ungraspable byan the look, It is' I~ok alike," the

obvIOUSbut worth34 SeeAlth

that says" llSser's amu 'cross .1- sing dreal," in "M .u..aefrontier an Pointed .arXlsm and Hu and,go On in th dl.SCUsslon fmamsm." 244 e direction o~ th~enCOunt .• SOCiety and ee WIth the sign

you will find the

The Point Is to (Ex)Change It175

emphasizing'the economv i ' II

, . tne economy IS a system of differences or relatIOns, re a-~~p_dthth' Ie e e mgs they relate to the extent that they are va -lies,Andwhen thi hib

mgs are exchanged they are exchanged not as I' ingslitas values val ithi b 'id I' ,ues WI in a system that traffics only in a stractlO

nS,

I eaizations p , di . dG ' reju Ices, and their ciphers or markers. Ghost: GeIst anespenstat once.Value"is alwa I' .' ,,' I t1

ys va ue in a relauon in an exchange, The sunp esvaue-relation i id ', n ISeVI ently that of a commodity to a single heterogeneouScommodIty' '" .k

' , , , x "are A = y Ware B" (C 139' DK 62-63], The relatIOnrna es th 1 . ' ' .it'd eva ue happen, since neither commodity brings its value WIthit' In ependent of the other. One thing uses the other as the medium ofs expression a I "th . f b

P ds va ue; e value of the Imen can there ore e ex-

resse only I ' Irelatio ' re attve y, i.e, in another commodity" (C, 140; DK, 63), Therec ~ IS structured as something like a dialectical staging of self-ogmtlOnthrough tr d" d d" . )' ther(I can a lctlOn an me latIon (expreSsIOn m an 0 -

recalth I 1reI t 1 e examp e of Peter and Paul). (Exchange) value emerges on ySicaI~ey,WIthout (and as a result of the evisceration of) anything intrin-of' a solute, especially sensible or phenomenal. "In the value-relation[heone commodity to another its value-character emerges or stepS forth42,~ortfltt] through its own relation to the other commodity" (C, 141-jelli :' 65), Commodities relate not as things but as values, ghostly orc e abstractIons: "It is only as value that [the linen] is related to theoatas equal' I [I" ' h' "N th's 'b m va ue G elchwertlges] or exchangeable Wlt It. 0 mgenslleha h " fvalu ppens ere, but simply the transformation by substItutIOn 0

[Wh;"S,Thus Mar~ can write that "weaving, insofar as it weaves v~luein "ch ISno senSIble activity], has nothing to distinguish It from taIlor-g (C, 141; DK, 64),What "allows" exchange to happen is neither the labors nor the uses~~th 't k mgs themselves but their abstracts, abstractions, operatmg as~ ens (practical necessities) in a relation. Being alike is being abstract,thnd m relation, one thing counts as the "qualitative equal [Gleiches]" ofDe other, "as a thing of the same nature, because it is a value" (C, 142;0:' 66, emphasis added), Relation is abstraction, and the "expression"b equation of one unit in the other, accomplished in the event of thea strachon, is unavoidably a matter of signification or figuration-to beread: "Th . . I Ae coat, the body of the coat_commodlty, IS sheer use-va ue,coat as such no more expresses value than does the first piece of linen,;,e came across, This proves only that within its value-relation to theImen, the coat signifies more [mehr bedeutet, signi!ie plUS] than it does

S('35,Recall that early in the chapter Marx stopS writing "exchange value" and sub-ltutes Simply "value."

178 Thomas Keenan

1 ' )' "38 To a certain extentfore their eyes the operations of specu alriza lion, f rth' , , ia h 1 d b in the text's outhe possibility of prosopopela ad a rea y egun ") The

paragraph, when commodities were embodied (Warenkorper, mofghosts of the analysis, which "allow" the passage to a specular syste,h

"h ity") w return WIt alikeness or equality (called, abstractly, umarn y no C 'to1vengeance, With the entrance into the analysis of Warensprache, apl

ly, , , II dIs it narrative ,takes Its figure (body, ghost, humanity] Iitera y, ep oy , d 'h ' arrymg ressand soon commodities are walking, standing, c oosmg, c ,

' lt lf round the verying (indeed, the coat, however threadbare, wraps I se a , DK 66])commodity of which it is the privileged example [C, 143, I' er

' , inen ] 1 form] no ong, , , and talking commodity talk, "The lmen as a va ue di butstands in Social relation with only one other kind of commo Ity

t" n

di it is a CI izewith the commodity-world [Warenweltj, As commo tty I I[Burger] of this World" (C, 155; DK, 77), , t d ifThe system of commodity exchange within which these rean~:: o~her

somewhat spectrally abstract figures enter into relatl?ns With e ved, theIS Itself spectacularly powerful. HaVing been artrfrclally dlssol Itheformalized rigor of the exchange relation [so the story goes) can be al

h, h

'th W ICmore thoroughly reconstructed, Like the geometry of forms WI '1Marx regularly compares it, its equations or likenesses are sym,metrl?a;mirrorlike, and totaliZing, EqUipped with the resources of dlalectrcanegatiVity (the commodity's mediation of itself in the other as its othe,r),the system maps out the time and space of the exchange and binds It~terms tightly together, The exchange of commodities is a "system aformalization and notation rigorous enough to be patterned on the mod-el of mathematical language," or more precisely, "its model is that ofanalytic geometry," as Paul de Man says of Heinrich von Kleist's mar'ionette theater. 39

GrOWingthrough a series of stages (the different "forms of value"-simple, expanded, general [recapitulated at C, 158; DK, 80]), the isolatedsubstitution of one thing for another is multiplied into the general sys-tem of economy ("it is an embryonic form which must undergo a seriesof metamorphoses before it can ripen into the price-form" [C, 154; DK,76]), The system begins as a simple equation, and the symmetry of thesubstitution allows others to be added to it infinitely, in a movement of

38, Luce lriga,.y, "Le march. des femmes," in Ce sexe qui n'en est pas un (Paris:Mmult, 1977), 173.; "Women on the Market," in This Sex Which Is Not One, trans,Calhenneporte~ With Carolyn Burke (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1985), 177. Seealso her dISCUSSIonsof the ghost, abstraction, and the question of analogism betweenthe exchange of commodities and of women, but also Within Capital itself "Le march.des femmes." 170-71; "Womenon the Market,"174-75. ., 39, Paul de Man, "Aesthetic Formalization, Kleist's Uber dos MorioneHentheoter,"m The Rhetoric of Romonticism (New York, Columbia University Press, 1984), 265,

The Point Is to (Ex)Chonge It

mirror of theb omes a "s" er cormnodity-body ec ration (one thingspecularization( every oth d infinite incorpO d finitely expand-lmen-value"[C,155; DK, 77]) an f med into the ill e 'mple value-

. is trans or d'fferent si "a"isolatedvalue-expression R 'he] of its I irely ad hoc,ableseries[stets verliingerbare I hel gh the series is entueressions" (C,

DK 76]) A t ou alue-expexpressions" [C,154; , . d h terogeneous v f ubstitutions ormotleymosaicof disparate an thl ndless chain 0 S when taken156DK78) any equation within t , sell "cormnodilies,(C 136' DK,' , , ed-SInce a . lue" , .transformationscan be revers ual [gleich] m va 1 " by any new

mcertainproportions, must be eq tantly extendab exchangeable. " ains cons dity an e s-60j-and the chain rem 'commo I, t m of eros

DK 78) Bemg a , nal sys e rWertgleichung(C, 156; , ,'th' transformatio dity is this pe _' , 'bed III IS h ommO I 't rn-thmg,meansbemg mscn , lnciple- T e c , tutter IS e'II' it ble in pnnc ratlve s ditymgsandreversals, I irm a til its enume com

mohi t least un I lue form, a I therpetualmotion mac me, a f general V8 ith al 0

. h h ergence 0 a h geable w temporarilyhaltedWit teem d' telly} exc an d f om the sys"'mme la I de r f stsetapartfrom the rest as I k" d of zero exC u f m for the If

commodities"(C,161; DK, 82)" a md closure. "This ~r e: or lets themmorderto guarantee its totality an h other as va u 't 's "immedl-dities to eaC DK 80); I Itimeactuallyrelates commo I es" (C 158; ,

' hange va u ' entappearto each other as ex,c, " C, 162; DK, 84)", arrives the m,o~ mateuniversalexchangeablhty (I hangeabllity "The FelishlsWIththe emergence of universa exc the final section: though, of the

' tl best known, G heimlllS, I rgueforwhichCapital is JUs y h of "The e d 't usual y aofCommoditiesand the Secret Th er~ai:U to understan ~anation of hoW

' Those w 0 c . (1) an exp t relatesectionis what It says. f fetishism IS ) come 0

thatCapital's so-called theor? 0 d selling (exchanged' (2) a reminder,humanbeings, through buymgdannot to each other anan social relatlodn,

d't' an f hum h n e-themselvesto commo lies h roduct 0 a d with teldity is t e p b end owe ize ourthus that every commo ething to e , to recogn' 'd not sam 'warnmg er us-oneof "our" creatIOns an 0 ant it. It IS a , omination OV of the

pendent existence we tend t dgrto refuse thelf d commonplace "The"own" offspring as such ~n. perhaps the centrakl, s pointed out"t hasb d th m ThiS IS As Lu dC " That Iecausewe rna e e ' e Marxism. . ted out, teentalkthat goes on under the nam has often been pOhmta relation be w

tomd't tructure , is t a 'phanessenceof comma I y S "t' "Its basIS quires a d ll-fr peatmg I'd thus aC I an adid not stop him om re t of a thing an 'tly rationa the rela-

people takes on the charac e~at seems so stnc ental nature:ob)'ectivity' an autonomy t of its fundam

' 1 ry trace eembracing as to concea eve dney Livlllgston1 "40 Rotion between peop e. 'ousness, trans.. and Closs Consel40. Georg Lukacs. History

(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1971), 83.

179

180 Thomas Keenan

, its basi Capital and thereisThis interpretation is not WIthout Its asIS In , itiquedit tructure as a en 1even reason to see the analysis of the comma I y S , nalogy

ks M "dulgence In an awith practical implications. than to arx s Into religion with a decidedly negative tone.

, , th d t mined socialrelationThe commodity-form, , , ISnothing but e e er th phan-between humans themselves which assumes here, for them, .t find

hl I der therefore, a Itasmagoric form of a relation between t mgs, nor, I". Hereh ist 1mof re rgion.an analogy we must tale a flight into t e mrs y rea , Iif f their

d ed WItha I e athe products of the human head appear as en ow ith h mans,own, entering into relations both with each other and WI U

This I call fetishism, (C, 165; DK, 86-87)

, t simply againstPerhaps Capital is saying, forewarned ISforearmed-no , eationsthe errors classically described as fetishism41 [confusing one lt crplaces)with one's creator. fixatedly mistaking the substitute for what I re and

di f ' abstractionbut against the double danger of the comma lty orm: , 'whetherreanimation, Here, warning would be preparation for action: com-

' "d h of tropes orthe danger IS the aberrant totahzatlOns an exc anges , , tence.modities, the reader and consumer might acknowledge theIr eXI~ orneunderstand their mechanism, and by that cognitive advance stan St'onh f

' , , 'h" t So the ques IC ance a clfcumscnbmg or regulatmg t elf Impac , rn.would be: does it suffice to become aware of the rhetorical or co tomodified nature of our exchanges in order to control their tendency

t1yerror, or at least in order to avoid the delusions of the fantasy apparencriticized as "fetishism"? to

f' b NeedlessI Marx ISany example, the answer would have to e no, , h

OflSC esay, the reading sketched here suggests that the phon to smogForm of fetishism is an exact description of the story we have just bee~reading, So, does Capital Conclude by denouncing the very errors I

practices? Does it practice the very errors it denounces? Or does it pro;tect itself from error and denunciation by a self-critical turn at the end,Perhaps it does none of these, and the practice of fetishism is a htllemore complicated tIian the standard definition suggests, We would dowell to heed Marx's admonition to the French reader and slow down,Suspend OUreagerness to connect immediate questions with generalconclusions, and pursue the fatigUing reading just a bit further,

41. See the series of articles by William Pietz, "The Problem of the Fetish," Res 9(Spring 1985), 5-17. Res 13 [Spring 1987), 23-45, and Res 16 (Autumn 1988), 105-23.as well as "The Historical Semantics of Fetishism," ms.

)Change ItThe Point Is to (Ex

Thesectionbegins: b tverstiindliches],, If_evident[sel s [vertracktes]Ii t SIghta se trange ,Acommodityappearsat IrS t that it is a very s I gical niceties,

trivialthing,Usanalysisbringsi~~ subtleties and th::~out it, whe~erthingaboundingin rnetaphys, thing mysterlOU ti s it satishes

' th re ISno 'oper ie IInsofarasit is ause-value, e , that by lis pr the product 0' t of view ti es as theweconsiderit fromthe pam k n these proper ~ an changes

humanneeds,or that it first ta :, ~at, by his activIty,:: them useful tohumanlabor,It is absolutelycle, uch a way as to rna dert] il a table ISformsofthematerialsof nature in s is altered [veron ordinary sen-

d 1 r mstance, ood. an rn-him,Theform01 woo , a table remains w s forth] as a comadeout01 it. Nevertheless,the s [auftritt, step, rein sinnhch

it emerge ibl thmgsiblething. But as soon as 1 ible supersenSl e. t a senar

modity,it changes m 0 , DK,B5) h firstubersinnlichesDing],[C,163, ly echoes ted It

. onspicuouS erforme .I tile sectIOn c ess it has p I rth as aTheopeningparagraph 0 h rsing the progr.1.' g can step 0, theh ter re ea meu.L1n lue Inparagraph01 the c ap , I actly how so change va that a

t' no ex d lnto ex . t'onreturnsus to the ques 10 e is translorme I lytic determma \ange

tocommodity,how use val~ eached the ana, order lor exc on inprocess01 exchange, We ahver) take(n) place m e 01 what goes

lss an

' t(ave thnam beecertainabstractIon mus b traction is e h proved to withoccur,and that, in lac!, a t tile abstraction ~vemiSsing measureexchange,But the ghosts 0 sl'ty replacing t e theorize

. 1 neces . toanswerthan a practIca , " h torical room, Iar andtheprejudice 01 "humanlltY'IIYgrants us theh~ge at once partlcu

lt. if useI 'h' m Illa 't m n tra 'Theturn to etIs IS 'd' There IS no I no commo definitiond' eJu Ice. t'tute or, by 1thisplace-hoI Ing pr uld subs I 'common, 'radic

ab tion co h' g In theIrcommoniliat an a strac ) have not m ) and thus monor

' labors selves, 11d comvalues(or productIVe orking them 'tile so-ca e that Marx(beingonly ways of use or wed, then doesn t? The Gespenst 'tuting the(subatomic)erasure IS re~~~~utedfor not~mg~hicb, in ~o~s~an origin-third term have to be su ~tution for nothl~~ted lor, inslItu ebstract)andcallsabstraction is a,su~ t could be sUbStI~'ng (common, aIt looks likenothingas a somethmg a between some~ I substitutIon, "exchangearysimulation of excha~ge I'Sstructured It e an noun)-say, precisely,

' titutlOn ammo, more .1.'Snothing,But tile ms er name (a c labor' or, Could u"'mprop h man 'own, If?the positing 01 an 1 "or "abstract u me at all 01 ItS xchang

eitse '

value" or just "valu.':., g that has no nafm the act of e

ewlll , h d ro"human"-for som d'stingulS e. way 1Positing be III any

181

182 Thomas Keenan

, iti f an improper nameonIf abstraction is structured like the impost ion 0 h t ' willbeth turn to r e onesomething that has none of its Own, then ano er h t icians as

ib d by the r e orhelpful. The situation is that descn e d we takeII d r terme or warcatachresis: "If for lacke of natura an prope a lie it to the thing

another, neither naturall nor proper, and do untruly? then wehavewhich We would seem to express," said George Putten am, the sym-

h . "42 It exposesused the figure he called "abuse, or catac rests. , h t troubles itsmetrical and totalized field of the trope to something t aclosure, Catachreses, as Paul de Man comments,

, "by virtue of theare capable of inventing the most fantastlc entities h turedi mber t e texpositional Power inherent in language, They can isme 5 ething

" of ways omof reality and reassemble it in the most capflCIOUS . d can

h ' the warmonstrous lurks in the most innocent of catac reses. . . . h t] has' , , ifies fane t abe said to produce of and by itself the entity It sigm I , the

I fthe table orno equivalence in nature, When one speaks of the egs 0 tial

' rld of potenface of the mountain ... one begins to perceive a woghosts and monsters, (EM, 21)

d hosts, fromThe first chapter of Capital is this world of monsters an g I em.

' 'spectra rthe first sentence's hideous assemblage to the abstracllon s thenant to this final section's misty fetishes, Ghosts and monst~rs are the(figurative) names of the commodity And the story of these fIgures" h"

. "fetlsone narrated by this chapter and allegorized under the name tohere, runs the full tropological spectrum, from simile or metaphor 'ssynecdoche to prosOpopeia and now to catachresis, The questIOn Itwhether we're still within a continuous spectrum, or if we ever rea ;were, Is catachresis a matter of SUbstitution, of exchange, or does Irupture the closure of the tropological system? ,Can yoU exchange SOmething for nothing? That you can get somethwg

for nothi~g should be clear by now, and if it isn't, the privileged exampl;of the fellsh ought to make it so, Think of a table,43 The verllcal thmgthat keep lhe fIat top off the grOund have no name of their own, nOnatural or proper signifier, But by catachresis we impose the borrowed orstolen term "legs" (or even "feet") and invent a name where before therewas nothing, Which is the story of fetishism; We can pick up quotingCapital right Where we left off,

42, George Puttenham, The Art. of English POes;e (1589' Kent Ohio: Kent StateUniversity Press, 1970), 190-91. . ,

43, Dehorah Esch, "'Think of a Kitchen Table': Hum. Woolf and the Translation ofExample," in Utemture as Philosophy, Philosophy as iitemt~re, ed, Donald G, Mar.shall (Iowa City: University of Jaw, Press, 1987), 262-76.

Change ItPoint Is to lEx)The

, made out of it,d 'f a table's th' g, But as' ance is altere 1 sensible rn ibleTheformofwood, for inst , d an ordinary into a sens

Nevertheless,the table remai:: :~:U:modity, it ch;n~~~g). It not o:~Soonas U emerges[ouftnttl, I' h iibersinnlJche, to all other c d

hi [ein sinn IC . relatIOn f its woo _supersensiblet mg d but, m k It] out 0 ,

standswith its feet on the groun~ ~volves [entwic e when of its ~wr;,modilies,it stands on its head, awonderful even th"7ootn

oteadds: t~e

enheadwhims [Grillen] more to dance, [The h n the rest ofStu kenl It began dance weger lesaccord[ausfreien uc bles began to ur encourv

mayrecallthat China and the ta till [after 1848]-POworldappeared to be stand)tng s h' level

64' DK 85 at t iscutres.] (C,163-, , 'ff cult to say 'st oneb d is di , 'not IU' 's good or a ing table IS the com-Whetherthis state of affairs I 11 this turmn ample of I t for

1 it After a , 1 the ex iva enofrhetorical comp ex] y, , quite simp y, iversal eqU1 h'ng be-thers but IS, ff ti ve un ful t 1exampleamong a modity, the e ec, _for the use n be sub-

modity,the common com the commodIty the table ca tration,

al!the rest. As the figure ford bled structure-Marx's demonhs com-If the ou dity 10 f ot ercomeexchangeab e, or ther commo I hanged or d'ties ind h ed for any 0 be axe rno 1 ,stitule or exc ang odities can d'ty of com 'already"in the same way" that commnplace, comma I g the table) IShanged,1 Y commo uch le, " tly excmodilies, Exemp a1 modity as s t be direc bstitutio

nhe The com canno the SUmoreways t an on , , use values which d by being

structuredlike a figure, smce round or acrosd~ ted or figure the ghost,ho • ommon a b me la . ishaVingnot mg m c t instead e The medIum

couldbe organized, but mus hange values, holder.' alled exC , placetransformed mto so-c tachres1s, a try of anh

, that of ca ymme dere. I t figure 1S nd the s grante

'The structure of this vio en I spectrum beyo be taken for tion-in-

the opening of the tropolofglcahich can nO longf~rce of abstra(~bstract)'b'lity 0 w d tive ts OreXchangethe pOSS1,', b the re uC nly as ghos ' an urgency

Dissolved or volatIhzed y changeable a vigor and b tractionI become ex d with a of a seXchange,use va ues re trade The force ould sayhumanity, But these spectebrs d

aes themselves, modities; we cnimalion

f \' ing 0 I tes com ) or a happroaching that a !Vh de and reanima 'f (tiberleben prior to t e(Abstraktionskraft) bot them whatever ht~at they had a~~tes them a~tt "ghosts" them, glvmg, h ut presum1ng t sand dest1 e"_wh1

c(Suspended) they have, W1t Ode force instltu e

me" or "at onfc

rthe struC-

coup "sa t" 0abstraction, The same 'ety of any as "ghos' I t' g the propn d a name Theonce-thus VlO amid be as goO sured.

t "wou We be meameans that "mons er d the name ar, t ble can1 es un er lary ature Marx ana yz f the exemp

Perhaps the difficulty 0

183

184Thomas Keenan

. . If tr ctured as a figure,table is a figure of the commodity, which IS Itse s u . I n exem-dit th table ISa so aBesides being the example of the comma I y, e id the exam-hr . .t If provi esplary figure, a catachresis. And the catac eSIS I se . Id be no

pIe for the structure of the commodity. Thus, as they say, It~OtUthetableaccident and nothing less than a certain textual necessity, t. a. If the

' '. f d head and rising asteps forth (not to menhon standmg on eet an , II ction ofground altogether) as the ghostly residue of the monstrous co e derful

hi t bl "more woncommodities the chapter has analyzed. T IS a e, 1 it began to. d [ [rei Stiicken Ieven than when of Its own accor aus reren h modity

dance," stands here not only on its feet and head but for t e comas SUch: ghost of a monster monster of a ghost. Freely. ith

' . I I ady begun wWhat is called exchange OrsubstitutlOn has a ways a re t of' lff t f m it, an acan act that can only be unthInkably di eren ro . osit-

. . '. II d d tterIy arhi trary pmshtutIon_the WIld, random, uncontro e ,an u hheit)

. . I d (G st Mensc 'mg of a status, a relatIon or a name to be re ate espen, th pre.That act can only be described as the simulation in advance, I e

ondi'

simulation or the simulacrum (the radically nontranscendenta .C thetion of possibility, nontranscendental because, strictly speaking, It IS)ofcondition of the impossibility of any exchange worthy of the na~e of

. . h he i stitutioneXchange. AbstractIon would thus itself name neit er t em. or

. h t chresis neXchange nor the substitution that is exchange, nett er ca ametaphor. . n

So When the question of commodity fetishism turns into the quedstlOf h. h .. f' ure as aa w at IS to be done, it shOUld come as no surprise t at It IS Ig 't

problem of reading and writing: "Value, therefore, does not have I ~description branded on its forehead; rather, it transforms every producof labor into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, men try to decipher thehieroglyphic" (C, 167;DK, 88). All the emphasis here is on the effort, thedifficult labor of decipherment. Try as we may, though, the interpreta-tion does not help much. Learning what we have learned from readmgCapital, Marx says, "in no way banishes the semblance [Schein) of O?-jectivity," which mists the commodity and which locks in fetishlStlcPursuit [the hermeneUtic gesture itself). The ghosts may be linguistic,but that does nat make them any easier to read. Indeed, precisely to theextent that they are placeholders, markers, catachres

es, they become

mare lingUistic and more trOUble to read. "Matter that is dead in adOUble sense"-that is language (at least) tWice: abstracted, inscribed.Faced with this conundrum, augenscheinlich, the interpreters (ex-

changers) succeed only in redeplOying the double bind that structurescommodity exchange. No matter how forewarned we are, thanks to theforearmaments of the knowledge of the secret of commodity exchangeand its resulting fetishism, as long as eXchange (language) goes on we are

Change ItPoint Is to (Ex)The

makes it mored knowing only . . the path. An thIS ISits difficulties. Marx says, . to linenpowerlessto overcome I nd meme."·· As d in a relatIOn labor,

scary."Jesaisbien, maishqUtaoats or boots stan f abstract human But"If I tate t a c d'mento . the eye.of madness; s th universal embo 1. hits you ID d.ties into

becausethe former is kt~eitl of the expressl.on these com~lO t~iS crazythecraziness[Verruc d boots bring to them ID itsd of coats an pears . adness,whenthe pro ucers th relation .. · ap ity" is thIS m . g whatrelationwith linen. .. e DK 90).45 "Humanl e of not know~n And

"{C 169;, . noranc knowIng.lverrucktan] form '. t simply the Ig d withoutsubjectand its object. It ISno f stlll having to °t' rs

" th the terror 0 d mons e .todo; It ISra er ly ghosts an I f pour. caps on "'Ceswehaveno magic , 'me ... , In

. rnais quand me rundrisse to. "[e sais bien. from the G44. See Octave Man~om, 69) 9-33. "ites a passagel'imoginoire(Paris: Seutl,19 'tMetaphors, fe anomy" (93).45. Spivak, in "Some Conce~s a moment 0 ec

the same effect: "madness ...