147543782 Bataille Hegel Death

7/27/2019 147543782 Bataille Hegel Death

1/21

Hegel, Death and Sacrifice

Author(s): Georges Bataille and Jonathan StraussSource: Yale French Studies, No. 78, On Bataille (1990), pp. 9-28Published by: Yale University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930112

Accessed: 27/10/2010 23:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French

Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yalehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2930112?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yalehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yalehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2930112?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale


2/21

GEORGES BATAILLEHegel,Death and Sacrifice'

The animaldies.Butthedeath f he nimal s thebecomingfconsciousness.

I. DEATHMan'sNegativityIn the Lectures f1805-1806,at themoment fhis thought's ullmaturity,uring heperiodwhenhewaswriting hePhenomenol-ogyofSpirit,Hegel expressedn theseterms heblackcharacter fhumanity:"Man is thatnight, hat mptyNothingness, hichcontains v-erythingn tsundividedimplicity:hewealth f n nfiniteumberofrepresentations,f mages,not one ofwhichcomesprecisely omind, rwhich moreover],renot there]nsofar s they rereallypresent.t is thenight,he nteriority-or-the ntimacy fNaturewhichexistshere: the] urepersonal-Ego.nphantasmagoricalep-resentationst s night n all sides: here uddenlyurges p a blood-spattered ead;there,nother, hite, pparition;ndthey isappearjust as abruptly.hat is thenight hatoneperceives fone looks aman in theeyes:then one is delving nto a nightwhichbecomesterrible;t s thenight f heworldwhich hen resentstself ous."2

1. Excerptrom study nthe-fundamentally egelian-thought fAlexanderKojeve. histhoughteeks, o far spossible, obeHegel's hought,uch contempo-rary pirit, nowing hatHegeldidnotknow knowing,or xample, he vents hathaveoccurredince1917 nd, swell, hephilosophyfHeidegger),ouldgrasp t anddevelop t. AlexanderKojeve'soriginalitynd courage, t must be said, s to haveperceived he impossibility f going any further,he necessity, onsequently,ofrenouncinghe creation f an original hilosophynd,thereby,he nterminablestarting-overhich s theavowalofthevanity fthought.hisessaywas first ub-lished n Deucalion5 (1955).With ermissionfEditionsGallimard 1988.2. G. W. F. Hegel,Jenenserhilosophie es Geistes n SamtlicheWerke, d.Johannesoffmeister,Leipzig: elixMeiner, 931), ol.20 180-81. CitedbyKojevenYFS 78, On Bataille, d. AllanStoekl,C)1990byYale University.

9


3/21

10 YaleFrench tudiesOfcourse, his"beautifulext,"whereHegel'sRomanticism indsexpression,s notto beunderstoodoosely.fHegelwas a romantic,t

was perhapsn a fundamentalmannerhewas atanyrate romanticatthebeginning-inhisyouth-, whenhe was a commonplace evo-lutionary),uthedidnot ee in Romanticismhemethod ywhichproud pirit eems tself apableofsubordinatinghereal world othe rbitrarinessf ts owndreams.Alexander ojeve,nciting hem,saysof these ines thatthey xpress thecentral ndfinal dea ofHegelianphilosophy,"hich s "the dea that hefoundationnd thesourceofhumanobjective ealityWirklichkeit)ndempirical xis-tence Dasein)are heNothingness hichmanifeststselfs negativeorcreativeAction, ree nd self-conscious."TopermitccesstoHegel'sdisconcerting orld, havefelt bligedtomark, ya careful xamination,oth ts violent ontrastsnd tsultimateunity.ForKojeve,"the 'dialectical'or anthropologicalhilosophy fHegel s inthefinal nalysis philosophy fdeath or,which s thesamething, fatheism)"K, 537; TEL,539).But fman s "death iving human ife"K,548;TEL, 550),man'snegativity,iven n deathbyvirtue fthefact hatman's death sessentially oluntaryresultingrom isks ssumedwithout ecessi-ty,without iological easons),sneverthelessheprinciplef ction.Indeed,forHegel,Action s Negativity,ndNegativity ction.Ontheonehand, heman whonegatesNature-by introducingnto t,like a flip-side,heanomalyofa "pure,personal go"-is presentwithin hatNature'sheart ike a nightwithinight,ike anintimacywithin heexteriorityf hose hingswhich re nthemselves-likea phantasmagorian whichnothing akes shapebut to evanesce,nothing ppearsbut to disappear,wherenothing xistsexcept b-sorbedwithoutrespite n the annihilation ftime,fromwhich tdraws hebeauty fa dream.But there s a complementaryspect:thisnegation fNature snotmerely ivennconsciousness-wherethatwhich exists n itself ppears butonlyto disappear)-; thisnegation s exteriorized,nd in beingexteriorized,eally in tself)changes hereality fNature.Manworks ndfights; e transformsthegiven;he transformsatureand in destroyingt he createsIntroductionotheReading fHegel, Paris:Gallimard,947), 73. TELeditionParis:Gallimard, 9801,75.)Henceforthited n thetext, s K; TEL).


4/21

GEORGES BATAILLE 11world, worldwhichwas not. On the one handthere s poetry,hedestructionhathas surged p and diluted tself, blood-spatteredhead;on theotherhandthere sAction,work, truggle. n the onehand,"pure Nothingness," here man "differsromNothingnessonly or certain ime" K, 573; TEL,575).On theother, historicalWorld,whereman'sNegativity,hatNothingness hatgnawshimfromwithin, reates hewholeof oncrete ealityatonce object ndsubject,real worldchangedor unchanged,man who thinksandchanges heworld).Hegel's Philosophys a Philosophy fDeath-or ofAtheism3The essential-and theoriginal-characteristicfHegelianphiloso-phy s to describe hetotality f what s; and, consequently,t thesametime that t accountsfor verythinghichappears efore ureyes, ogive n ntegratedccount f he houghtnd anguagewhichexpress-andreveal-thatappearance."Inmy opinion," ays Hegel, "Everythingepends n one's ex-pressingndunderstandingruth ot only) s substance, ut lso assubject."4

3. In thisparagraph,nd thefollowing,repeatn a differentorm hathasbeensaidbyAlexander ojeve. utnotonlyna differentorm; ssentiallyhave odevelopthe econd art f hat entence, hichs, t firstlance, ifficultocomprehendn tsconcretespect:"Thebeing r the nnihilationfthe Subject' s thetemporalizingannihilationfBeing,whichmustbe beforeheannihilatedeing: hebeing fthe'Subject'necessarilyas, herefore,beginning.ndbeing he temporal)nnihilationof henothingnessnBeing, eingnothingnesshichnihilatesinsofars Time), he"Subject"sessentially egationf tself: hereforet has an end." nparticular,havefollowedor his as have lready one n theprecedingaragraph)hepart fntroduc-tion tothe Reading fHegelwhich oncerns arts and3 ofthepresenttudy,.e.,AppendixI, "The Idea ofDeathin thePhilosophyfHegel,"Kojeve, 27-73. (TEL,529-75.) [Translator'sote: Thisappendix,romwhich ll ofBataille's eferencesoKojeve retaken, emains ntranslatednEnglish;t s not ncluded nAllanBloom'sreeditionand bridgment)fKojeve'sntroductionotheReading fHegel NewYork:BasicBooks,1969).J4. Cf.,G. W. F.Hegel,ThePhenomenologyfSpirit,rans.A.V. Miller Oxford:Oxford niversityress, 977), -10. In hisfootnotes,ataille ttributesheFrenchversions e uses ofHegelto JeanHyppolite'sranslationfThePhenomenologyfSpirit nd often lso citesthepagesfromntroduction la lecture e Hegel whereAlexandre ojeve uotes he amepassages.However, ojeve's ersion iffersrom hatofHyppolite nd Bataille's romoth. t s the atterhat havetranslated.age efer-enceswillhereafteregiven otheEnglishranslationyA.V.Miller,whichs often tsignificantariancewith hequotationss I haverenderedhem.Translator'sote.]


5/21

12 YaleFrench tudiesInotherwords, aturalknowledges incomplete,t doesnot andcannot nvisage nybut bstract ntities,solated romwhole, rom

an indissoluble otality, hich lone s concrete. nowledgemust tthesame time be anthropological:in addition o theontologicalbasesofnatural eality,"ojevewrites, [knowledge] ustfind hoseof human reality, hich alone is capableofbeingrevealed hroughDiscourse" K, 528; TEL,530).Ofcourse, his nthropologyoes notenvisageMan as do themodernciencesbut s amovementmpossi-bleto isolatefrom heheart f hetotality.n a sense, t s actuallytheology, hereman has taken heplaceofGod.ButforHegel, hehuman ealitywhichheplaces t theheart, ndcenter,f hetotalitysvery ifferentrom hat fGreek hilosophy.His anthropologys that f heJudeo-Christianradition, hich m-phasizesMan's liberty, istoricity,nd individuality. ike Judeo-Christianman,theHegelianman is a spirituali.e., "dialectical")being.Yet,for heJudeo-Christianorld, spirituality"s fully eal-izedand manifest nly nthehereafter,ndSpirit roperlypeaking,truly objectivelyeal"Spirit,s God: "an nfinitendeternal eing."AccordingoHegel,the"spiritual" r"dialectical" eing s "neces-sarily emporal nd finite." his meansthatdeath loneassures heexistenceof a "spiritual" r "dialectical"being, n the Hegeliansense. f the animalwhich constitutesman'snatural eingdidnotdie, nd-what ismore-ifdeath idnotdwell nhim s the ource fhisanguish-andall themore ointhatheseeks tout,desirestandsometimes reelyhooses t-there would be no man or iberty,ohistoryr ndividual.n otherwords,fherevelsnwhatnonethelessfrightensim, fhe is thebeing, denticalwithhimself,whorisks(identical) eing tself,henman s truly Man: heseparates imselffromhe nimal.Henceforthe sno onger,ikea stone, n mmuta-blegiven, ebearswithin imNegativity;ndtheforce,heviolenceofnegativityasthim nto he ncessantmovementfhistory,hichchanges im ndwhich lonerealizes he otalityf he oncrete ealthroughime.Onlyhistory asthepower ofinishwhat s,tofinishtin thepassageoftime.Andso the dea of n eternal nd mmutableGod is in thisperspectivemerely provisional nd,which urvives

whileawaiting omething etter. nlycompletedhistorynd thespirit f heSage ofHegel)-in whomhistory evealed,hen evealedinfull, hedevelopmentfbeing ndthetotality f tsbecoming-occupy sovereign osition,whichGodonlyprovisionallyccupies,as a regent.


6/21

GEORGES BATAILLE 13The Tragi-ComicAspect ofMan's DivinityThis wayof seeing things an with usticebe considered omic.Besides,Hegel never xpressedt explicitly. he textswhere t isimplicitlyffirmedreambiguous,ndtheir xtreme ifficultylti-mately ept hem rom ull onsideration.ojevehimselfs circum-spect.He does notdwellon them ndavoidsdrawing recise onclu-sions. In orderto expressappropriatelyhe situationHegel gothimself nto,no doubt nvoluntarily,ne wouldneedthetone, r atleast, n a restrainedorm,he horror ftragedy.utthingswouldquickly ake on a comicappearance.

Bethat s itmay,opass througheath s soabsent romhedivinefigure hat a myth ituated n the traditionssociateddeath, ndtheagonyofdeath,with the eternal nduniqueGod of theJudeo-Christianphere. he death fJesus artakes f omedy o the xtentthatone cannotunarbitrarilyntroduce heforgettingfhis eternaldivinity-which s his-into theconsciousness fan omnipotentand nfinite od.Before egel's"absoluteknowledge,"heChristianmythwas already asedprecisely n the fact hatnothing ivine spossible inthepre-Christianenseof acred)which s finite. utthevagueconsciousnessnwhichthe Christian)myth fthedeathofGodtookform iffered,onetheless,rom hat fHegel: norder omisrepresentfigurefGod that imited he nfinitesthe otality,twaspossible o addon, n contradiction ith tsbasis,a movementtoward hefinite.Hegelwas able-and itwasnecessaryor im-to addupthe um(theTotality)f hemovements hichwereproducednhistory. uthumor, t seems, s incompatiblewith workand itsnecessary s-siduity. shallreturn othis ubject; havemerely,or hemoment,shuffled ards.... It is difficultopass from humanityhumiliatedby divinegrandeuro that .. ofthe apotheosized nd sovereignSage,hispride wollenwithhumanvanity.A Fundamental TextInwhat havewrittenptothispoint, nly nenecessitymergesna precise ashion: here anbe authenticWisdomabsoluteWisdom,or ngeneral nythingpproachingt)only f heSage raiseshimself,if canput t thisway, o theheight fdeath, twhatevernguishtohim.


7/21

14 YaleFrench tudiesApassagefromheprefaceo thePhenomenologyf pirit5orce-fully xpresses henecessity f suchan attitude. here s no doubt

fromhestart f he"capital mportance"f his dmirable ext, otonlyfor nunderstandingfHegel,but nall regards."Death,"writesHegel,"-if we wishso to namethat nreality-is the mostterriblehing here s and touphold hework fdeath sthe askwhichdemands hegreatesttrength.mpotenteauty atesthis wareness, ecauseunderstandingakes hisdemand fbeauty,a requirement hichbeauty annotfulfill. ow,the ifeofSpirit snot that ifewhich s frightenedfdeath, ndspares tself estruc-tion, ut hat ifewhich ssumesdeath nd iveswith t.Spirit ttainsitstruth nlybyfindingtself n absolutedismemberment.t is notthat prodigious)ower ybeing hePositivehat urnsway romheNegative, s whenwe sayofsomething:his s nothing r this s)false nd,having thus)disposed f t,passfrom here osomethingelse; no, Spirits thatpower nly o the degreen which tcontem-platestheNegative aceto face and)dwellswith t. Thisprolongedsojournsthemagical orcewhich ransposeshenegativentogiven-Being."The Human NegationofNature nd of heNaturalBeingofManInprinciple,ought ohavestartedhepassageustcited tanearlierpoint. didnotwanttoweighthistextdownby giving he "enig-matic" ineswhichprecedet. But shall sketch ut the enseof heomittedinesbyrestating ojeve'snterpretation,ithoutwhich heconsequences, n spiteofan appearance f relative larity, ouldremain losedtous.For Hegel, t is bothfundamentalnd altogether orthy f as-tonishmenthathumanunderstandingthat s, anguage, iscourse)shouldhave had theforce an incomparable orce) o separate tsconstitutivelements rom heTotality. hese elements this ree,

5. Cf.,Hegel,ThePhenomenologyofpirit,rans. . V.Miller, 9.Cited yKojeve,538-39. TEL,540-41.) Kojeve, yppolite,ndBataille ll translateheGerman Zer-rissenheit"y"dechirement,"hich in turn ave given s "dismemberment,"hesamewordwhich ppearsn Miller's ranslationfHegel. t s importanto note hattheword dechirement"as themeanings f"shredding"nd"tearing"nd,unlike"dismemberment,"oesnot mply disarticulationnto redeterminednits.n L'Ex-p6riencent6rieure,or xample,Bataillespeaksof himself s left n "lambeaux"(shreds,s of loth rpaper)whichhis "inabilityo respondchevait e. .. d6chirer,"(Paris:Gallimard, 954), 9). Translator'sote.]


8/21

GEORGES BATAILLE 15thisbird, his tone) re n factnseparable rom hewhole.They re"boundtogether y spatialand temporal,ndeedmaterial, ondswhich re ndissoluble." heir eparationmplies hehumanNega-tivity owardNatureofwhich spoke,without ointing ut tsde-cisiveconsequences.Forthe man whonegatesnature ouldnot nany waylive outsideof it. He is notmerely manwho negatesNature,he is first fall an animal, hat s to saythevery hinghenegates:he cannotthereforeegateNaturewithoutnegating im-self.The intrinsicotality fman s reflectednKojeve'sbizarre x-pression, hat otalitys first fall Nature natural eing),t is "theanthropomorphicnimal" Nature,he nimal ndissolublyinked othe wholeofNature, nd which upportsMan).Thus humanNega-tivity,Man's effectiveesiretonegateNature n destroyingt-inreducingt tohis ownends, swhen, or xample, emakes tool ofit and hetoolwill bethemodelof nobject solated rom ature)-cannot topat Manhimself;nsofars he is Nature,Man is exposedto his own Negativity. o negateNature s to negatethe animalwhichpropsup Man's Negativity.t is undoubtedlyotthe under-standing,reaker fNature's nity, hich eeksman'sdeath, ndyettheseparating ction oftheunderstandingmpliesthemonstrousenergyfthought,f the"pure bstract,"which s essentially p-posedtofusion, o the nseparable haracter f theelements-con-stitutive fthe whole-which firmly pholds heir eparation.It is the very eparation f Man's being, t is his isolationfromNature, nd, onsequently,is solationnthemidst fhisownkind,whichcondemn imtodisappear efinitively.heanimal,negatingnothing,ost n a global nimalityowhich toffersoopposition-justas that nimalitys itselfost nNature and nthetotalityf llthat is)-does not trulydisappear... No doubt the individual flydies,buttoday's lies re thesame as those of astyear.Lastyear'shave died? . . . Perhaps,but nothing as disappeared. The flies re-main, equal to themselves ike thewavesof the sea. This seemscontrived: biologist anseparate fly rom he warm,ll ittakes sa brushstroke.uthe separatestfor imself, edoes notseparatetfor he flies.To separatetself rom he others flywould needthemonstrousorce f heunderstanding;hen t wouldname tself nddo whattheunderstandingormally ffectsymeans of anguage,whichalone founds heseparation felements ndby foundingtfoundstself n it,within world ormed fseparatednddenomi-natedentities.Butin thisgamethe human animalfindsdeath; t


9/21

16 Yale French tudiesfinds recisely umandeath, heonly one whichfrightens,hichfreezes-but which onlyfrightensnd transfixesheman who isabsorbednhis future isappearance,o theextent hathe is a sepa-rated nd irreplaceableeing.The onlytruedeath upposes epara-tion nd, hroughhediscoursewhich eparates,he onsciousnessfbeing eparated."Impotent eautyHates theUnderstanding"Up to thispoint,Hegel'stextpresents simple ndcommon ruth,but one enunciated n a philosophicalmannerwhich s, properlyspeaking, ibylline. n the passagefrom he Preface itedabove,Hegel,on thecontrary,ffirmsnddescribes personalmoment fviolence-Hegel, in otherwordsthe Sage,to whom an absoluteKnowledge as conferredefinitiveatisfaction.his is not an un-bridled iolence.WhatHegelunleasheshere s not theviolenceofNature, tis theenergy,rtheviolence, ftheUnderstanding-theNegativityf heUnderstanding-opposingtself othepurebeautyofthedream,whichcannot ct,which s impotent.

Indeed, hebeauty f hedream s on that ide of heworldwherenothingsyet eparated rom hat urroundst,where achelement,in contrast o the abstract bjectsoftheUnderstanding,s givenconcretely,n spaceand time.Butbeauty annot ct. It canonlybeandpreservetself.Through ction t would no longer xist, inceactionwouldfirst estroy hatbeautys: beauty, hich eeksnoth-ing,which s,whichrefuseso move tself utwhich sdisturbedytheforce ftheUnderstanding. oreover,eauty oesnot havethepower orespond o therequest f heUnderstanding,hich sks ttouphold ndpreservehework fhumandeath.Beautysincapableof t, n thesensethattoupholdthatwork,t wouldbe engagednAction.Beauty s sovereign,t s anend,or t s not: that swhy t snotsusceptible oacting,why tis,even nprinciple, owerlessndwhy t cannotyieldto the activenegation ftheUnderstanding,whichchanges heworld nd tself ecomesother han t is.6

6. Here my nterpretationifferslightlyrom ojeve's146[TEL,1481).Trans-lator'snote: thispassagetoo is missing rom loom's bridgmentfKojeve,whichstarts nlywith he ectures ivenn 1937-38. Thepassage nquestions from he1936-37 ectures.)I ojeve implytates hat impotenteautys ncapable f endingtotherequirementsf heUnderstanding.heesthete,heromantic,hemystic, leethe deaofdeath nd peak fNothingnesstself s somethinghich s. Inparticular,he admirably escribes hemysticn thisway.But thesameambiguitys foundn


10/21

GEORGES BATAILLE 17This beautywithout onsciousness f tself annot thereforeeal-ly-but notfor he amereason s life,which recoilsnhorror romdeathand wantsto save itself rom nnihilation"-beardeathand

preservetselfn t. This mpotent eauty t east uffersrom eelingthebreakup f heprofoundlyndissoluble otalityfwhat s (of heconcrete-real).eautywould like to remain he signof an accordof the real with itself. t cannot become consciousNegativity,awakened n dismemberment,nd the lucidgaze,absorbedn theNegative.This latter ttitude resupposesheviolent nd aboriousstrugglef Man againstNature and is its end. Thatis thehistoricstruggle hereMan constitutes imself s "Subject" ras "abstractI" ofthe"Understanding,"s a separatednd namedbeing."That s tosay,"Kojeve larifies,that houghtndthediscoursewhichreveals hereal are bornof thenegativeActionwhich actu-alizesNothingness y nnihilating eing: hegiven eing fMan (intheStruggle)ndthegivenbeingof Nature throughWork-whichresults,moreover,rom herealcontactwithdeath ntheStruggle.)That s tosay, herefore,hat hehumanbeinghimselfs noneotherthan hatAction:he is deathwhich ives human ife" K,548; TEL,550).I wantto insiston thecontinual onnection etween n abyssalaspect nda tough, own-to-earthspect nthisphilosophy,heonlyonehaving he ambition o becomplete. hedivergentossibilitiesofopposedhumanfiguresonfrontach other ndassemble n t: thefigurefthedyingmanand of heproud ne,whoturns rom eath,thefigurefthe master nd that fthemanpinned ohis work, hefigureftherevolutionarynd thatoftheskeptic,whose egotisticalinterestimits desire.This philosophys notonlya philosophy fdeath. t is also one ofclass strugglend work.Butwithin he imits f his tudy do not ntend oenvisage hisother ide. would ike to compare hatHegeliandoctrine f deathwithwhatweknowabout"sacrifice."philosophersinHegel, nHeidegger),t eastultimately.ntruth, ojeve eems o mewrong ot tohaveenvisaged, eyond lassicalmysticism, "consciousmysticism,"conscious fmaking Being rom othingness,nd,naddition,efininghatmpasseas aNegativity hichwouldno onger ave field f ctionatthe ndofhistory).heatheisticmystic,elf-conscious,onscious fhaving odie andtodisappear, ouldlive, sHegelobviouslyaidconcerningimself,inabsolute ismemberment";ut,for im,t sonly hematterf certaineriod: nlikeHegel, ewouldneverome utof t, contemplatingheNegative ightnthe ace," utnever eingble otransposetintoBeing, efusingo do it andmaintainingimselfnambiguity.


11/21

18 YaleFrench tudiesII. SACRIFICE

Sacrifice,n theonehand,and on theother,heGaze ofHegelAbsorbed nDeath and SacrificeI shallnot peakof he nterpretationf acrifice hichHegelgivesnthe chapter fthePhenomenologyevoted oReligion.7t nodoubtmakes ense n thedevelopmentf hechapter,ut tstrays romheessential nd,from hepoint fviewof he heory f acrifice,t s, nmyopinion, f ess nterest han he mplicit epresentationhich sgivenn thetext f hePreface ndwhich shallcontinue oanalyze.

Concerningacrifice, can essentially ay that,on the evel, fHegel'sphilosophy, anhas, n a sense, evealed ndfounded umantruth ysacrificing;nsacrifice edestroyedhe nimal8 nhimself,allowing imselfndthe nimal osurvivenly s thatnoncorporealtruthwhichHegeldescribes ndwhichmakesofman-in Heideg-ger'swords-a being ntodeath Sein umTode), r-in thewords fKojevehimself-"deathwhich ivesa human ife."Actually,heproblemfHegel sgivennthe ction f acrifice.nsacrifice, eath,on the one hand,essentially trikes hecorporealbeing; ndon the otherhand, t is preciselyn sacrificehat"deathlivesa human ife." tshould venbesaidthat acrifices thepreciseresponse oHegel'srequirement,heoriginal ormulationfwhichrepeat:"Spirit ttains tstruthnlybyfindingtselfnabsolutedismem-berment. t does not attain that prodigious) owerby beingthePositive that turns away from the Negative. . . no, Spirit is thatpower nly nthedegree o which tcontemplatesheNegative aceto face [and]dwells with it . . ."Ifonetakes nto ccount hefact hat he nstitutionf acrificespractically niversal,t s clearthatNegativity,ncarnatednMan'sdeath,notonly s the rbitraryonstructionfHegel,but lso that thasplayed role nthe pirit f he implestmen,without nycom-7. ThePhenomenologyfSpirit, hapter : Religion, .: Religion ntheformfArt, ) The abstractworkofart 434-35). n thesetwo pages,Hegeldwellson thedisappearance fobjectiveessence,but withoutdevelopingts consequences.On

the econdpageHegel imitshimselfoconsiderationsroper o "aesthetic eligion"(thereligionftheGreeks).8. Still, lthoughnimal acrificeeems opredate uman acrifice,heresnoth-ing oprove hat he hoice f nanimal ignifiesheunconscious esire ooppose heanimal s such;man sonly pposed ocorporealeing,hebeing hat sgiven.He is,furthermore,ustas opposed o theplant.


12/21

GEORGES BATAILLE 19mon grounds omparable o thosewhich reregulated nceandforall by the ceremonies fa Church-but nonetheless n a univocalmanner.t s strikingo see that cross heworld communalNega-tivityhas maintained strictparallelism n the development frather table nstitutions, hichhave the same form nd the sameeffects.Whether e Lives orDies,Man Cannot mmediately nowDeathI shall speaklaterof theprofound ifferencesetween heman ofsacrifice,ctingnignoranceunconscious) fthefull copeofwhathe s doing, ndtheSage Hegel) urrenderingothe mplicationsfKnowledgewhich, n his owneyes, s absolute.Despite thesedifferences,hequestion fmanifestingheNega-tive tillremainsand tillunder concrete orm,.e.,at theheart ftheTotality, hoseconstitutivelements re nseparable).heprivi-legedmanifestationfNegativitys death, utdeath,nfact, evealsnothing.ntheory,t s hisnatural,nimalbeingwhosedeath evealsMan tohimself, utthe revelation ever akesplace.Forwhentheanimalbeing upportingimdies, hehumanbeing imself eases tobe. n order orManto reveal imself ltimatelyohimself, e wouldhave todie,buthe wouldhave to do itwhile iving-watching im-self easing obe. In otherwords, eath tselfwouldhavetobecome(self-)onsciousness t theverymoment hat tannihilateshecon-sciousbeing. n a sense, his s whattakesplace what t least s onthepoint f aking lace,orwhich akesplace na fugitive,ngrasp-ablemanner) ymeansof subterfuge.nthe acrifice,he acrificeridentifies imselfwiththe animalthat s struck owndead. And sohe diesin seeinghimself ie,andeven, na certainway, yhis ownwill,one in spiritwith the sacrificialweapon.But it is a comedy!At east t wouldbea comedyf omeothermethod xistedwhichcouldreveal o the iving he nvasion fdeath:thatfinishingff fthe finite eing,whichhis Negativity-whichkillshim,ends himanddefinitivelyuppresses im-accomplishesalone and which talone can accomplish.ForHegel, satisfaction an onlytakeplace,desire an be appeasedonly ntheconsciousness fdeath. f t werebasedon the exclusionofdeath, atisfaction ouldcontradict hatwhichdeathdesignates,fthesatisfied eingwhois not conscious,notutterly onscious,of what n a constitutivemannerhe is, i.e.,mortal,were ventuallyo be driven romatisfactionydeath.That


13/21

20 YaleFrench tudiesis whythe consciousness hathehas ofhimselfmustreflectmustmirror)hemovement fnegativityhich reates im,whichmakesa man ofhim for hevery eason hat t will onedaykillhim.He will be killedbyhis ownnegativity,ut forhim,thereafter,therewill be nothing eft;his is a creative eath,but if the con-sciousnessof death-of themarvelousmagicofdeath-does nottouchhimbefore edies,during is ife twill seemthatdeath s notdestined o reachhim,and so thedeath waiting imwill not givehim a human character. hus, at all costs, man must ive at themoment hathe reallydies,or hemust ive withthe mpression freallydying.Knowledge fDeath CannotDo Without Subterfuge:pectacleThisdifficultyroclaimshenecessityf pectacle, rof epresenta-tion ngeneral, ithout hepractice fwhich t wouldbepossible orus to remain lien and ignorantn respect o death, ustas beastsapparentlyre. ndeed,nothings less animalthanfiction, hich smoreor ess separated romhereal,from eath.

Man does not ive bybread lone,but also by thecomedieswithwhichhewillinglyeceiveshimself.nMan it sthe nimal,t s thenaturalbeing,whicheats. But Man takespart n rites ndperfor-mances. Or else he can read: to the extent hat t is sovereign-authentic-,literaturerolongsn himthehauntingmagic fperfor-mances, ragic rcomic.Intragedy,9t least, t s a question four dentifyingith omecharacterwho dies,and ofbelieving hatwe die, althoughwe arealive.Furthermore,ure ndsimple magination uffices,ut t hasthe amemeaningstheclassicsubterfuges,erformances,rbooks,to whichthemasseshave recourse.AgreementndDisagreement etweenNaiveBehaviors ndHegel'sLucid ReactionBy ssociatingtwith acrificend, hereby,ith heprimaryhemeofrepresentationinart,nfestivals,nperformances),havesoughttodemonstratehatHegel'sreactions fundamentalumanbehav-ior. t is nota fantasyr a strange ttitude,t is par excellence he

9. I discuss omedy urthern.


14/21

GEORGES BATAILLE 21expression ndlessly epeated ytradition.t snotHegel alone, t sall ofhumanity hich verywherelways ought, bliquely,o seizewhat deathbothgaveand tookawayfrom umanity.

BetweenHegel and theman ofsacrifice hereneverthelesse-mainsa profoundifference.egelwas consciousofhisrepresenta-tionoftheNegative:he situatedt, ucidly,n a definiteoint fthe"coherent iscourse"whichrevealed imtohimself. hatTotalityincluded hediscoursewhichreveals t. The manofsacrifice, holackeda discursive onsciousness fwhat he did,hadonlya "sen-sual" awareness, .e., an obscureone,reduced o an unintelligibleemotion.t s true hatHegel himself, eyond iscourse,nd nspiteofhimselfinan "absolutedismemberment,")eceived he shockofdeath venmoreviolently. oreviolently,bove ll,for heprimaryreason hat hebroadmovement fdiscourse xtendedts reachbe-yond imits, .e.,within he frameworkftheTotality fthe real.Beyond heslightest oubt, orHegel, hefact hathewas stillalivewas simply n aggravation.he man of acrifice,n theother and,maintains is life ssentially. e maintains t notonly nthe sensethat ife s necessary or herepresentationfdeath, ut also nthesensethat] e seekstoenrich t.Butfromn externalerspective,hepalpableand intentional xcitement fsacrificewas ofgreatern-terest hanthe nvoluntaryensitivityfHegel.The excitement fwhich speakis well-known,s definable;t is sacred horror: herichestndthemost gonizing xperience, hichdoesnot imit tselfto dismembermentutwhich,on thecontrary,pens tself,ike atheatreurtain,nto realm eyondhisworld,where herisingightofdaytransfiguresll things nddestroysheirimitedmeaning.

Indeed,fHegel'sattitude pposes earned onsciousnessnd thelimitless rganizationf discursivehinkingothenaivete f acri-fice, till hat onsciousness ndthat rganizationemain nclear nonepoint;one cannot aythatHegelwas unaware f he"moment"of sacrifice; his "moment" s included, mplicated n the wholemovement fthePhenomenology-wheret is the Negativity fdeath, nsofar s it is assumed,which makesa manof the humananimal.Butbecausehedidnot eethat acrificen tself orewitnessto the entiremovement fdeath,10he finalexperience-the one10. Perhaps or ack of a Catholicreligious xperience. imagineCatholicismcloser opagan xperience;meanto a universaleligious xperiencerom hich heReformationistancedtself. erhaps profoundatholic iety ould lonehave ntro-duced he nward ensewithoutwhich hephenomenologyf acrifice ouldbe m-


15/21

22 Yale French tudiespeculiar o theSage-described nthePreface o thePhenomenologywas atfirstnitialand universal-he didnotknow o what xtent ewas right-withwhatprecision e described he ntimatemovementof Negativity; e did not clearly eparate eathfrom he feeling fsadness o whichnaiveexperiencepposes sort f hunting ard fthe emotions.Pleasure and theSadnessofDeathItwas preciselyheunivocal haracterfdeath or egelthat nspiredthefollowing ommentaryrom ojeve,which pplies, gain, o thepassagefrom he Preface:K, 549; TEL, 551). "Certainly,he dea ofdeathdoes notheightenhewell-beingfMan;it doesnotmakehimhappynor does itgivehimanypleasure."Kojevewonderednwhatway atisfactionesults rom familiarityith heNegative, romtete- -tetewithdeath.He believedthisduty,utofdecency,orejectvulgar atisfaction.hefact hatHegelhimselfaid, nthisrespect,that pirit only ttains ttruthyfindingtselfnabsolute ismem-berment" oestogether,nprinciple, ithKojeve'sNegation.Conse-quently,t wouldeven be superfluouso insist.... Kojevesimplystatesthat the idea ofdeath"is alone capableifsatisfying an'spride." . . Indeed, hedesire o be "recognized,"hichHegel placesattheorigin fhistoricaltruggles,ouldbeexpressednanintrepidattitude,f he ort hat hows charactero tsbest dvantage.It sonly," aysKojeve, inbeing r nbecomingware fone'smortalityorfinitude,n existingndin feeling ne's existence n a universewithout beyond rwithout God,thatMan can affirmis iberty,hishistoricitynd his ndividuality- unique n all theworld andpossible.Modemknowledge,much moreextensive hanthatofHegel's time,hasassuredly ontributedo the olution fthat undamentalnigmawhy, ithoutnyplausible eason, ashumanityngeneral sacrificed"?),ut seriously elieve hatcorrect henomenologicalescriptionouldonlybe based on at least a Catholicperiod.-But atanyrate,Hegel,hostile obeingwhich oesnothing,-towhat implys,and s notAction,-was more nterestednmilitaryeath; t s throughuchdeaththatheperceivedhe heme f acrificebuthe himselfses thewordna moral ense):"The state-of-the-soldier,"e states n his Lectures f1805-06, "and warare theobjectivelyeal acrificef hepersonal-I,hedangerfdeath or heparticular,-thatcontemplationfhisabstractmmediate egativity . A"inHegel, dmtlicheWerke,vol.20,261-62. Citedby Kojeve nIntroductionotheReading fHegel,558 [TEL,560]).Nonetheless, eligiousacrificeas, ven rom egel's oint fview, n essentialsignification.


16/21

GEORGES BATAILLE 23havethemberecognized.Ibid.). ut fKojeve etsasidevulgar atis-faction-happiness-he now also sets asideHegel's "absolutedis-memberment":ndeed, uchdismembermentsnot asily econciledwiththe desirefor ecognition.Satisfactionnddismembermentoincide, owever,n onepoint,buthere hey armonizewith leasure.This coincidence akesplacein "sacrifice";tis generallynderstood s thenaiveform f ife, severy xistencenpresent ime,whichmanifests hatMan is: thenoveltywhichhesignifiesntheworld fter ehasbecomeMan,onthe condition hathe has satisfied is "animal"needs.Atanyrate, leasure, r at leastsensualpleasure,s suchthat nrespecto tKojeve's ffirmationouldbedifficultouphold: he deaofdeathhelps, n a certainmanner nd ncertain ases,tomultiplythepleasures f the senses. go so far s tobelieve hat,under heform fdefilement,heworldorrather hegeneral magery)fdeathis at thebase of erotism.The feeling fsin is connectedn lucidconsciousness o the idea ofdeath, nd in the same manner thefeeling f in s connectedwithpleasure. There s in fact ohumanpleasurewithout ome rregularityn tscircumstances,ithout hebreakingf n interdiction-the implest,nd themostpowerfulfwhich, s currentlyhatofnudity.Moreover, ossessionwasassociatedn tstimewith he mage fsacrifice; twas a sacrifice n which womanwas the victim.... Thatassociation romncient oetrysverymeaningful;trefers ack oaprecise tateof ensibilitynwhich he acrificiallement, hefeel-ingof acredhorrortself,oined, n a weakened tate, o a temperedpleasure; nwhich, oo, hetastefor acrificend theemotionwhichitreleased eemed nnoway ontraryotheultimate ses ofpleasure.It mustbesaidtoo that acrifice,iketragedy,as anelement fcelebration;t bespoke blind, ernicious oyandall the danger fthat oy, ndyet his spreciselyheprinciplefhuman oy; twearsoutand threatens ithdeath ll whoget aught p n ts movement.Gay Anguish,AnguishedGaietyTothe ssociation fdeath ndpleasure,which snot given, t eastis not n mmediate ivennconsciousness,sobviously pposed he

11. This sat eastpossible nd, f t s a matter f hemost ommon nterdictions,banal.


17/21

24 Yale French tudiessadnessofdeath, lwaysn thebackgroundf onsciousness.n prin-ciple, onsciously,umanityrecoilsnhorrorefore eath." n prin-ciple,the destructiveffects fNegativity ave Nature s their b-ject.ButforMan's Negativityo drive im nto confrontationithdanger, orhim to makeofhimself, rat least ofthe animal, fthenaturalbeingthathe is, theobjectofhis destructive egation, hebanalprerequisiteshisunconsciousness f hecauseandtheeffectsofhisactions.Now, t was essential orHegel ogainconsciousness fNegativitys such, ocapturets horror-here hehorror fdeath-by upholdingndby ooking he work fdeathrightntheface.Hegel, n thisway,s less opposed o thosewho "recoil" hantothosewhosay: "it is nothing." e seems todistancehimselfmostfrom hosewhoreactwithgaiety.I wanttoemphasize, s clearly s possible, fter heir imilarity,the oppositionbetween he naive attitude nd that ofthe-abso-lute-Wisdom ofHegel. I am notsure, n fact, hatofthe two at-titudes hemorenaive s the ess absolute.I shallcite paradoxicalxample f gay eactionntheface f hework f death.

The rish ndWelsh ustom f he"wake" s littleknown utwasstillpracticedttheendof he astcentury.t s the ubject fJoyce'slastwork,2FinnegansWake-thedeathwatch fFinneganhowever,the reading fthis famousnovel s difficultt best). n Wales,thecoffin as placedopen, tandingt theplaceofhonor fthe house.The deadmanwouldbe dressedn his finest uit andtophat. Hisfamilywould nvite ll ofhisfriends, ho honored hedepartedllthemorethelonger heydanced and thedeeper heydrank o hishealth. t s thedeathof nother, ut nsuch nstances,hedeath ftheother s alwaysthe mageof one's own death.Onlyunder necondition ouldanyone o rejoice;with hepresumed greementfthedeadman-who is an other-, the dead man that he drinkernhis turnwill becomeshall have no othermeaning hanhis prede-cessor.This paradoxical eaction ould be considered response o thedesireto denythe existenceofdeath. A logical desire?Not inthe east, think.n Mexicotoday, eath s commonlynvisaged nthesame level as the amusements hatcan be found t festivals:

12. On the ubject f his bscure ook, ideE.Jolas,ElucidationumonomythedeJames oyce"nCritiqueJuly948):579-95.


18/21

GEORGES BATAILLE 25skeleton uppets, keleton andies, keletonmerry-go-rounds-butthis custom s associatedwith n intense ultofthedead, visibleobsessionwithdeath.3If envisagedeathgaily,t is not that too say, n turning wayfromwhat s frightening:it snothing" r "it s false."On thecon-trary,aiety,onnectedwith hework fdeath, ausesmeanguish,saccentuated y myanguish, nd n returnxacerbates hat nguish:ultimately, ayanguish, nguishedgaiety ause me, in a feverishchill,'4 "absolutedismemberment,"here t is my oythatfinallytearsmeapart, utwheredejectionwouldfollowoywere not tornall thewaytotheend, mmeasurably.

There sone precise ppositionhat would iketobringutfully:on the one handHegel's attitude s less whole thanthatofnaivehumanity,utthis smeaningless nless,reciprocally,neseesthatthenaive ttitudespowerlesso maintaintselfwithout ubterfuge.DiscourseGivesUsefulEnds toSacrifice Afterwards."I have linkedthemeaning f sacrifice o Man's behavior nce hisanimalneedshave beensatisfied:Man differsrom henatural eingwhichhe also s; the acrificialestureswhathehumanlys,andthespectacle f acrificehenmakeshishumanitymanifest. reed romanimalneed,manis sovereign: e doeswhat he pleases-his plea-sure.Under heseconditions e is finallybletomake a rigorouslyautonomous esture. o long sheneeded osatisfynimalneeds,hehadtoact with n end n view hehad tosecure ood, rotect imselffromhecold).Thissupposes servitude,series f cts ubordinatedto a final esult: henatural,nimal atisfaction ithoutwhichManproperlypeaking,overeign an,couldnot ubsist. utMan's ntel-ligence,his discursive hought, eveloped s functionsf ervile a-bor.Only acred, oeticwords,imited othe evelof mpotent eau-ty,have retained hepower o manifest ullsovereignty.acrifice,consequently,s a sovereign,utonomousmanner fbeingonly tothe extent hat t is uninformedymeaningful iscourse.To theextent hatdiscourse nformst,what ssovereignsgivenn terms f

13. This cameout nthedocumentaryhich isenstein rew rom is work orlong ilm:VivaMexico!The crux f his ilm ealtwith hebizarre ractices hichhavediscussed.14. Reading chaud t froid" or chaud-froid,"hichmeans dishpreparedotbut erved old.


19/21

26 Yale French tudiesservitude.ndeedbydefinition hat s sovereignoes not erve.Butsimple discourse must respondto the question that discursivethoughtsksconcerninghemeaning hat achthingmusthave onthe level of utility.n principle, ach thing s there o serve somepurposeor other.Thus thesimple manifestationfMan's link toannihilation,hepurerevelation fMan tohimselfatthemomentwhendeathtransfixes is attention) assesfromovereigntyo theprimacyf ervile nds.Myth, ssociatedwith itual, adat first heimpotent eauty fpoetry,utdiscourse oncerningacrificelippedintovulgar,elf-servingnterpretation.tarting itheffectsaivelyimagined nthe evelofpoetry,uch as the ppeasing f godor thepurity fbeings, he end ofmeaningfuliscourse ecamethe abun-danceofrainorthecity'swell-being.hesubstantial ork fFrazer,whorecalls hoseforms f overeigntyhatwere hemost mpotentand, pparently,he eastpropitiousor appiness, enerallyends oreduce hemeaning f heritual ct to the amepurposes s labor nthefields,ndto makeof acrificenagrarianite.Today hat hesisoftheGoldenBough s discredited,ut tseemed-reasonablensofarasthe amepeoplewhosacrificednscribedovereignacrifice ithintheframe f language fplowmen.t s true hat n avery rbitrarymanner, hichnevermerited he credence frigorous eason, hesepeopleattempted,ndmusthave abored o, ubmit acrificeo thelaws ofaction, aws towhichthey hemselvesweresubmitted,rlabored o submit hemselves.Impotence ftheSage to AttainSovereigntyntheBasisofDiscourseThus, the sovereigntyf sacrifices not absoluteeither. t is notabsoluteto the extent hat the institutionmaintainswithin theworldof efficaciousctivity formwhosemeaning s, on thecon-trary,overeign.A slippagecannotfail to occur, o thebenefit fservitude.Iftheattitude ftheSage Hegel) s not,for tspart, overeign,tleastthings unctionn theopposite irection; egeldidnotdistancehimselfnd fhewasunable ofinduthenticovereignty,ecameasnearto it as he could.Whatseparated imfrom twouldeven beimperceptible ere we not able to glimpse richermage throughthese alterations fmeaning,which touch on sacrifice ndwhichhave reduced tfrom n end toa simplemeans. The keyto a lesser


20/21

GEORGES BATAILLE 27rigorousnessn thepartof theSage is thefact,not thatdiscourseengageshis sovereignty ithin frame hatcannot suit him andwhich trophiest,butpreciselyheopposite: overeigntynHegel'sattitudeproceedsfrom movementwhich discoursereveals ndwhich, n theSage's spirit,s never eparated rom tsrevelation.tcan never,herefore,efully overeign;heSage, nfact, annot ail osubordinatet tothegoalofa Wisdomwhich upposes hecomple-tion of discourse.Wisdom alone will be fullautonomy,he sov-ereignty fbeing. . . . At least it would be ifwe could find overeigntyby earchingort:and, nfact,f search ort, amundertakingheproject fbeing-sovereignly:uttheproject fbeing-sovereignlyre-supposes servile eing!Whatnonetheless ssures he overeigntyfthemomentdescribeds the "absolutedismemberment"fwhichHegel speaks, herupture,or time, fdiscourse. ut thatruptureitself s not sovereign.n a sense it is an accident n the ascent.Althoughhetwo overeignties,henaive nd the ageones, rebothsovereigntiesfdeath,beyond hedifferenceetween declineatbirthbetween gradual lteration nd an imperfect anifestation),they iffernyet nother recise oint: nHegel'spart,t spreciselya question f naccident. t snota stroke ffate, pieceofbad uck,whichwouldbe forevereprivedf ense.Dismemberments,onthecontrary,ull fmeaning."Spirit nly ttainststruth," rites egel(but t is myemphasis), by findingtself n absolutedismember-ment.")But thismeanings unfortunate.tis what imited nd m-poverishedherevelation hich heSagedrew romingeringntheregionswheredeathreigns.He welcomed overeigntys a weight,whichhe letgo ...

Do I intend o minimizeHegel's ttitude? ut he ontrarys true!I wantto showthe ncomparablecopeofhisapproach. o that ndcannotveil theveryminimal andeven nevitable) artoffailure.Tomymind,t s rather he xceptional ertaintyf hat pproachwhich s broughtut nmy ssociations. fhefailed, necannot aythat twas theresultof an error. he meaning fthefailure tselfdiffersrom hatofthefailurewhichcaused it: the error lone isperhapsfortuitous.n general, t is as an authenticmovement,weightywithsense,thatonemustspeakof the "failure" fHegel.Indeed,man salways npursuit f nauthentic overeignty.hatsovereignty,pparently, as, in a certain ense, originally is, butdoubtless hat ould not thenhave been na consciousmanner, ndso in a senseit was nothis, t escapedhim.Weshall see that n a


21/21

28 Yale French tudiesnumber fwayshe continuedopursuewhat oreverludedhim.Theessential hing s thatone cannot ttain t consciously nd seekit,because seekingdistances t. Andyet can believethatnothing sgivenus that s notgivenn that quivocalmanner.

Translated yJonathantrauss

147543782 Bataille Hegel Death

Documents

Transcript of 147543782 Bataille Hegel Death