BEINER, Ronald. Walter Benjamin's Philosophy of History

7/28/2019 BEINER, Ronald. Walter Benjamin's Philosophy of History

1/13

Walter Benjamin's Philosophy of HistoryAuthor(s): Ronald BeinerReviewed work(s):Source: Political Theory, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Aug., 1984), pp. 423-434Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191516 .

Accessed: 11/04/2012 14:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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].

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/191516?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/191516?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/13

WALTER BENJAMIN'S PHILOSOPHYOF HISTORYRONALD BEINERUniversityof Southampton, England

What is Walter Benjamin'sintention in his enigmatic "Theseson thePhilosophy of History"'7 According to BenJamin'sfriend GershomScholem, the "Theses""heaccomplished his awakeningfrom the shock"of the pact.2 According to Scholem, the "Theses" mark Benjamin'sdecisive break withhistorical materialismand a returnto the metaphysi-cal-theological concerns of his early thought: What the "Theses"haveleft in common with historical materialism is "onlythe ironic relation ofthe terminitechnici"3,"frequentlynothing remains of historicalmaterial-ism except the term itself."4 The secret core of the theses is in fact, forScholem, the hope of a leap into transcendence.5 In support of hisinterpretation, Scholem cites the first thesis, where BenJaminproposesan alliance between historical materialism and theology Historicalmaterialism must take its guidance from theology if it is to win the dayHistory is likened to a chess game, where historical materialismappearsto be in command, whereas in fact it is a mere puppet controlled by theunseen hand of theology.6 On Scholem's readingof the theses, the angelof history (in thesis IX) cannot make whole again the fragments ofhistory, and therefore BenJaminmust have resort, in the last thesis, tothe Messiah, who alone can succeed where the angel must fail-namely,in the redemption of history.7 On this reading, Benjamin appears as atheologian manque, fighting to break out of materialistic categories,who finally forsakes the angel of historical materialism for the Messiahof Jewish theology.The "Theses"themselves present a verydifferent face. In everyone ofthe theses, Benjamingives the impression of strugglingto define the truenature of historical materialism, as well as struggling to formulate hisposition in relation to historcism generally Phrasessuch as "the histor-ical materialist knows this," "historical materialists must be aware ofthat," run throughout the "Theses." In each of the theses BenjaminPOLITICAL THEORY, Vol. 12 No. 3, August 1984423434? 1984 Sage Publications, Inc.

423


3/13

424 POLITICAL THEORY / AUGUST 1984seems to be defining the stance of the self-conscious historical material-ist, as opposed to the false historcism of those who lack a genuinehistorical consciousness. Benjamin gives the appearance, at least, ofsomeone concerned not to detach himself from materialist categories,nor to repudiatethem, but to redefinethose categories and to clarifythenature of his allegiance to them.Historical materialism had always defined itself in terms of revolu-tionary expectations for the future. Accordingly, the historical past hadalwaysbeen analyzedin terms of what is to be. Benjaminstrictlyreversesthis perspective: historical materialism is to be defined by a certainrelation to thepast, namely, a redemptiverelation: Historical material-ists are aware that each generation, including the present, is "endowedwith a weak Messianic power"(thesis II). The task entrusted to histori-cal materialismis not to makethe future, but to save the past. Historicalmaterialism is a way of comporting oneself, not toward the totality ofthe historical process, but toward certain instants of the historical past:to makethe fragmentswhole again. To be guardianover these momentsis the task of the theological-materialisthistorian.This conducts us to a second way In which Benjamin redefineshistorical materialism. One normally associates historical materialismwith the idea of historyas a rational process, as a dialectical movement,ordered by a purpose. Historical materialism, under the influence ofHegel, is an effort to conceive history as rationally intelligible. Butthereis nothing of this conception in Benjamin's "Theses":for Benjamin,history is radically fragmented; the task of the angel of history is toestablish a redemptiverelation to the fragments (thesis IX).8This con-ception is certainlyfar removed from the idea of history as a rationallyintelligible process. But if Benjamin rejects the idea of history as arational process, by what right does he claim to be speaking as ahistorical materialist and speaking for historical materialists? Is notScholem then justified in saying that the "Theses" have nothing incommon with historical materialism but the term itself, and that Ben-jamin uses materialistcategories as a cover for reflectionsthat arein factmetaphysical and theological?I wish to suggest an answer to this question. In his "Theses,"Ben-jamin seeks to define, for the firsttime, a historical materialisthistoriog-raphy The angel of history described in thesis IX has his face "turnedtoward the past."That is the direction in which his gaze is pointed, andthat is wherethe angelwants to linger.He would indeed dwellthere, if hewere not propelled away from the catastrophic past by a historicalprogression that is really mere frenzy. The angel of history prefers totarry at the ruins of the past in order to "awaken the dead," to make


4/13

Beiner / BENJAMIN'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 425whole what has been shattered. To this corresponds the redemptivefunction of historical reflection, the saving power of remembrance.Thehistorian desires to keep faith with the past, and it is in this that hisrevolutionary commitment is expressed. Benjaminseeks to explain howone can be both ahistorian and a historical materialist,without definingor justifying the activity of historiography in terms of the immediateneeds of revolutionary action. I believe that this had never been donebefore, strange as it may seem, and that in this way Benjamindefined anew scope for the historical materialist tradition.Consider Marx's historical writingson political events in nineteenth-century France: The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, TheCivil War n France, and The Class Struggles m France 1848-1850. It isnatural to regard Marx, in these writings, as a political analyst andrevolutionarystrategist, strugglingto decipherthe contemporaryeventsof his time so as to plan revolutionarypraxis on the basis of a better andmore informed understanding of what promotes and what blocks effec-tive action. But here one does not view Marx specifically as a hlstoriog-rapher. What is missing from the conventional understandingof thesewritings is the distinctive relationship of Marx to the workers andrevolutionaries whose tragedy he shares and whose failure he relates.Thus Benjaminserves to disclose a further dimension to Marx's work asa historian, understood as an activity distinct from that of the revolu-tionary strategist, analyst, and so forth. He helps us to see what Marx isreally (implicitly) doing in these historical writings, even though Marxhimself might be quite unaware of this dimension.Marx begins the Class Struggles in France as follows: "With theexception of only a few chapters, every more important part of theannals of the revolution from 1848to 1849carries the heading: Defeat ofthe Revolution!" But Marx then proceedsto drawprogressfrom defeat:The progress of the revolution required the creation of a powerful,united counter-revolution, which would provide the opponent neces-sary for the ripening of a genuinely revolutionary party So the revolu-tionary actors are defeated, but the revolution is carried forward.According to Benjamin's seventh thesis, however, one would have toregard Marx as here turning against his own true intention as a histor-ian, and as breaking faith with the actors who are the real concern ofMarx'snarrative. To forsake the standpoint of the vanquished, as Marxappears to do here, is to betray the principles of a genuine historicalmaterialist historiography This is brought out well in Adorno'scommentary on thesis VII:

If Benjaminsaid that history had hitherto been writtenfrom the standpoint of thevictor, and needed to be written from that of the vanquished, we might add that


5/13

426 POLITICAL THEORY / AUGUST 1984knowledge must indeed present the fatally rectilinear succession of victory anddefeat, but should also address itself to those things which were not embraced bythis dynamic, which fell by the wayside-what might be called the waste productsand blind spots that have escaped the dialectic. It is in the nature of the defeated toappear, in their impotence, irrelevant, eccentric, derisory.9

This captureswhat Marx in his historicalwritings accomplishes implic-itly (that is, insofar as he is writing as a historiographer),regardlessofhow far it maydeviate from Marx'sown self-understandingas reflectedin his explicit statements about what he is doing.Several commentators on Benjamin cite Marx in the EighteenthBrumaire:"The social revolution of the nineteenthcenturycannot drawits poetryfrom the past, but only from the future. Earlierrevolutionsrequiredrecollections of past world history in order to drug themselvesconcerning their own content. In order to arrive at its own content therevolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury theirdead."'?This passagemakes clearwhat is common to the conceptions ofhistory of Benjamin and Marx as well as what makes them divergesharply It is truethat for Benjamin,as for Marx, the revolution cannotdraw its poetry from the past in the sense that it does not derive itscontent from previous history On the other hand, according to ourreadingof the "Theses," o say(as Marxdoes) that thedead mustsimplybe left to bury their dead would be to relinquish precisely that which isthe revolutionary moment in historical reflection. In this respect, Ben-jamin must repudiatethe idea that the revolution may draw its poetrynot from the past butfrom thefuture. What hope there is comes notfrom the future but from a vanquished past that resists domination bythe victorious enemy. Thereforeit is theduty of the historianto continue"fanning the spark of hope in the past"(thesis VI).

What, then, distinguisheshistorical materialisthistoriography?Ben-jamin discusses this in many of the theses, above all in theses XVI-XVII.First of all, historical materialismdoes not assumea reverentialattitudeto history, contemplating the flow of historical occurrence with thecomplacent assurance of continual progress. The latter approach tohistory is what Benjaminrefersto as historicism, the political counter-partto which is the GermanSocial Democratic Party, against which hepolemicizes in theses XI-XIII. In theses VI and XII, Benjaminsets uptwo opposing models of historiography The first, represented byRanke, seeks to contemplate "the way it really was." The second,


6/13

Beiner / BENJAMIN'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 427associated with Nietzsche, proclaims:"We need history, but not the waya spoiled loafer in the garden of knowledge needs it." Ranke's viewcorresponds to what Benjamin calls historicism, whereas historicalmaterialism is firmly aligned with the conception of historical knowl-edge ascribed to Nietzsche. According to the outlook of historicism, thetruth of history is always "there,"awaiting our contemplation. This isthe view, cited in thesis V, that "The truth will not run away from us"there is no urgency to historical reflection, for the facts will always bethere waiting for us, whenever we find time or impulse for contempla-tion. This, BenJamin says, "marks the exact point where historicalmaterialism cuts through historicism." For historical materialism, iicontrast, the past must be "seized" what is requiredis "toseize hold of amemory as it flashes up at a moment of danger"(theses V-VI). If wemiss the moment, the past is irretrievable."The true picture of the pastflits by" (thesis V). The historical materialist historian is ruled by aperception of theprecariousness of the past, andthis perceptiongives tohistorical reflection the urgency lacked by historicism in its contempla-tive outlook. As Benjaminputs it in thesis VI, even the dead are not safefrom the enemy who never ceases to be victorious, and thereforehistoriography is an unremitting struggle on behalf of the dead.Historicism portrays the past as something eternal. "Once upon atime" is a whore in historcism's bordello (thesis XVI). Historicismpresupposes a homogeneous, empty time, which it attemptsto fill with amass of data (thesis XVII). The historicist "tells the sequence of eventslike the beads of a rosary" (thesis A). The historical materialist, incontrast to all this, sees history as living and throbbing with revolution-ary possibilities, and strives to establish a messianic relation with thepast. Universal history (the culmination of historicism)' is based on theflow of thoughts; materialistic historiography is based on the arrest ofthoughts (thesis XVII). With the latter, historical thinking receives a"shock," and this shock stops it in its tracks. It comes face to face withthe revolutionary moment, and is determinedto blast the moment out ofthe homogeneous course of history This is what Benjamin calls the"Jetztzeit"(now-time), in which the present and past are drawn into amessianic relation (thesis A). Through shock, arrest, and blasting, his-torical materialism replaces the homogeneous, empty time of histori-cism with the time filled by Jetztzeit (thesis XIV). Where the historicistsees an inert "chain of events," the historical materialist sees a brokenvessel in need of repair, a ruined past in need of salvation, a forsakenancestor in need of awakening (thesis IX).What serves, above all, to differentiate materialist historiographyfrom historicism is that the latter isbased on the idea of progress(thesesVIII-XIII). It was this faith in progress that enabled the Social Demo-


7/13

428 POLITICAL THEORY / AUGUST 1984crats to betray the German working class (thesis XI). But historicalmaterialists cannot share thiscomplacent faith in progress.Theirreflec-tion on history neverforgets the fate of the vanquished and therefore isgoverned bythe tragic knowledge that the cultural treasures that are thespoils of the victors "have an origin which [one] cannot contemplatewithout horror" "There is no document of civilization which is not atthe same time a document of barbarism"(thesis VII). This awarenessshattersanycomplacencyon the partof the historian. Social democracyencourages the notion that one is "movingwith the current" thesis XI),whereasthe historical materialist"regards t as his task to brushhistoryagainst the grain" (thesis VII). Historicism finds security in the con-tinuum of history, while historical materialism seeks those chargedmoments that explode the continuum of history through revolutionaryaction (theses XIV-XV). The French Revolution saw a revolution inhistoricalconsciousness:It was"atiger's leap into the past,"and this wasat the same time a"leapin the open air of history "Benjamintells us thatthis is how Marx himself understood the revolution (thesis XIV).Benjaminbelievesthat Fascism can only be defeated by shatteringallcomplacency, which is fostered by the Social Democrats' faith in prog-ress. For this one requiresa catastrophic appreciation of history' "Thetradition of the oppressed teaches us that the 'state of emergency' inwhich we live is not the exception but the rule"(thesis VIII). History is asky-high pile of debris and the assertion of progress is meant to deflectour gaze from this unredeemed debris (thesis IX). Historical material-ism means that the vanquished are not forgotten, and this means thatone is never deterredby the idea of progress from continuing to wage"the fight for the oppressed past"(thesis XVII).The ever present danger, as Benjamin says in thesis V, is that theimage of the past "is never seen again." This image "flits by," andtherefore must be seized before it is gone. When Benjamin says that"every mage of the past that is not recognized by the presentas one of itsown concerns threatensto disappear irretrievably," he emphasis is noton "the present'sown concerns," but on the need to save the past fromthe threatof irretrievabledisappearance.This overridingconcern of the"Theses" s expressed most decisively in thesis III:The chroniclerof thepast should observe the truth that "nothing that has ever happenedshould be regardedas lost for history."'2

IIIAccording to thesis XII, the workingclass, if it is to remain the bearerof historical knowlege, must keep its attention trained on "the image of


8/13

Beiner / BENJAMIN'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 429enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren."Thetransgression of this precept was the unforgivable sin of the SocialDemocrats, whose treachery was to depict the working class as theredeemers of future generations; by dangling before the working classthe prospect that things would get better, it caused the remembranceofpast generations to be overshadowed by the contemplation of genera-tions to come. But is this not the case with all progressivist socialdoctrines, including Marxism?13 It was, after all, not only the SocialDemocrats who betrayed their own cause, as Benjamin makes clearenough in thesis X, it is reflection on the deeper and more blatanttreachery of the Communists in 1939-40 that nearly tempts one toimitate the retreat from worldly entanglements of the monasticorders.)14 In its anxiety to liberate the grandchildren,the progressivistideology risks alienating us from the sufferings of our downtroddenancestors, who cannot be liberated,but at best, simplyremembered.Thehistoriographical task is not to anticipate better times to come, but tohold open the promise of redemption for all moments that have alreadybeen. Above all, the renunciation of historcism in favor of historiog-raphy means that remembrance shall prevail over soothsaying: "Weknow that the Jews were prohibited from investigating the future. TheTorah and the prayers nstructthemin remembrance,however" thesis B).Given that the "Theses"are animated by antihistorcist pessimism, ifnot antihistorcal despair, the continued adherenceto Marx's authority(invoked in theses IV, XI, XII, and XIV) remainssomething of a puzzle.Christian Lenhardtcorrectlynotes that in the "Theses"Benjaminassertswith carefree assurance the claim that Marx, together with Blanqui andin stark opposition to social democracy, shareshis understandingof themeaning of revolution, without any effort on Benjamin's partto furnishtextual substantiation of the claim.'5 However, there is at least onepassage (from the Nachlass) in which Benjamin appearsto concede thathis critique of the idea of progress places a measure of critical distancebetween his conception of historical materialism and that of Marx: Hebegins by quoting Marx to the effect that revolutions arethe locomotiveof world history. But then he suggests that maybe it is entirelyotherwise,that maybe revolutions exhibit the human race reaching for the emer-gency brake.'6This recalls thesis XVI: "A historical materialistcannotdo without the notion of a presentwhich is not a transition, but in whichtime stands still and has come to a stop." (And in thesis XV, time isarrested by revolutionary action; thesis XVII speaks of a messianiccessation of happening.) According to Marx's metaphor, the historicalprocess is a trainjourney powered by revolution, whereas it is this very


9/13

430 POLITICAL THEORY / AUGUST 1984trainjourney that must be brought to a halt in order to realize Ben-jamin's vision of historical materialism. The Benjaminian historiog-rapherwishes to get off this train because, far from being elated by thedestination it promises, he continues to be troubledby the whistle-stopsthat have been left behind.

Despite the fragmentary and tentative character of the "Theses,"itwould be hard to overstate the importance of the text, not only for theunderstandingof Benjamin'sown work, but also, as we have suggestedabove, for the disclosure of a unique and unprecedented concept ofhistoriographythat is of more generalsignificance.17 Onthe otherhand,it is not easy to locate the precisestatus of the "Theses."It appearsthatBenJaminwas averse to the idea of their publication, for, he said, "itwould leave the door wide open to enthusiastic misunderstanding."'8BenJamin laimedthat he kept the ideas of the "Theses" o himself for 20years, but it is not quite true that he strictlykept them to himself: Someof the key formulations of the "Theses"were alreadystated in his essayon "EdwardFuchs, Collector and Historian" 1937), and the redemptiveconception of historygoes all the way back to the "Theologico-PoliticalFragment"(1920-21).'9As for the question of the furtherelaboration ofthe "Theses,"there are indications that Benjamin intended to developthe "Theses"in the direction of a more general critique of the idea of20progress.It is clear that Benjamin himself was convinced of the vital method-ological role of the "Theses." He describes the work as a "theoreticalarmature"for one of the Baudelaire essays that he had done for theInstitute for Social Research (whereas, according to thesis XVII, uni-versalhistory-the mode of historiography practisedby historicism-isincapable of being furnished with a theoretical armature). The"method"that the "Theses"adumbrateis as follows: "to blast a specificera out of the homogeneous course of history-blasting a specific lifeout of the era or a specific work out of the lifework"(thesis XVII).21Theresultof this method is the Aufhebung in this work of the lifework;in thelifework, the era;and in the era, the entire course of history "A histori-cal materialistapproachesa historical subject only wherehe encountersit as a monad."In letters to Scholem and Adorno, Benjamin spoke of the need for anepistemological underpinningfor his most ambitious project, the majorwork on the ParisArcades, and severalcommentators viewthe "Theses"as supplying the required epistemology. In the words of Susan Buck-Morss, "it was intended as a methodological introduction to the'Arcades' project," and as such, "it instructs the reading of his ownwork."22And Adorno goes so far as to claim that the "Theses"constituteone of the fewcompleted portions of the sprawlingandunconsummated


10/13

Beiner / BENJAMIN'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 431Arcades project.23 Assuming that these conjectures are correct, the"Theses" should ultimately be read in the context of the work on theArcades (the Nachlass of which has recently been published).24HereBenjamin is himself writing as a cultural historian. He must thereforeaddress the questions: What is cultural history9What politicaljustifica-tion can it have?How can the activity of the historian be reconciled withany kind of revolutionary political commitment? How can preoccupa-tion with a past that cannot be changed contribute anything to the taskof changing the world?Above all, Benjaminmust clarify to himselfwhya historical materialist should concern himself at all with writing thecultural history of nineteenth-centurybourgeois Pans.Perhaps the "Theses" do not shed very much light on what it means,in general, to be a historical materialist, but they do at least clarifywhatit meant for Benjamin to be a historical materialist. To the question"Whydoes a revolutionarywritehistory9"Benjaminis able, on the basisof the "Theses,"to answer:"To save the dead from oblivion." In one ofthe notes from the Arcades project we read: "Those who are alive at anygiven time see themselves in the midday of history They are obliged toprepare a banquet for the past. The historian is the herald who invitesthose who are departed to the table.""25The "Theses on the Philosophy of History" were the very last ofBenjamin's writings. He left the manuscript of the "Theses" withHannah Arendt, who relayed it to Adorno in America for eventualpublication: in the mimeographed memorial volume produced by theFrankfurt School's Institute for Social Research in 1942; in a Frenchversion (translated by Benjamin himself) in 1947; and finally in aGerman periodical in 1950. A recent biography of Arendt tells the storyof how the "Theses" were borne, like a precious relic, from Lisbon toNew York.26Arendt'sbiographer recounts how the "Theses"were readaloud among a group of refugees in Lisbon while awaiting the ship thatwould carry them away from Nazi-overrun Europe. Accordingly, the"Theses" areworthy of reflection, not only as a literarytext, but also as ahistorical document.

Jurgen Habermas has described the "Theses" as "one of the mostmoving testimonies of the Jewish spirit."27Perhapsthe "Theses"succeedin capturing this spirit because they were, almost literally, produced inflight. The "Theses"werewritten in early 1940,after Benjaminhad beenreleased from an internmentcamp in France. Only several months laterBenjamin would be on the run from the Gestapo, as the Nazis occupiedFrance. Benjaminfailed to make his escape: His flight from Europewasblocked at the Franco-Spanish border,where he took his life ratherthanrisk the possibility of being handed over to the Gestapo. The story of hissuicide, as related by Scholem and Arendt, is unspeakably tragic. When


11/13

432 POLITICAL THEORY / AUGUST 1984

Benjamin wrote his "Theses," the problem of how and by what means toflee from a Europe being swept by the Nazis was all consuming; theHitler-Stalin pact was still in force. BenJamin's fate was not unlike thatof the angel of history, chased by the storm of progress away from a timepiled high with catastrophe.

NOTES

1. Although the work is commonly known by the title "Theses on the Philosophy ofHistory" Geschichtsphilosophische Thesen),the more authentictitle seemsto be:"OntheConcept of History" (Uber den Begriff der Geschichte). The English translation is inIlluminations, ed. HannahArendt(Fontana/ Collins, 1973),pp. 255-266. For the originaltexts and accompanying notes, see Gesammelte Schriften, eds. Rolf Tiedemann andHermann Schweppenhauser (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1972-1982), Bd. I, 2, pp.691-704 and Bd. I, 3, pp. 1223-1266.A huge secondary literaturehas grown up around Benjamin in recentyears. Some ofthe most interesting and important commentaries available in English are: TheodorAdorno, "A Portrait of Walter Benjamin," n Prisms, trans. Samuel and Shierry Weber(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982),pp. 227-241; Hannah Arendt,"Introduction: WalterBenjamin 1892-1940,"inArendt, ed., 1973,pp. 1-55;Timothy Bahti,"Historyas Rhetori-cal Enactment: Walter Benjamin'sTheses 'On the Concept of History,'" Diacritics, 9, 3(Sept. 1979),pp. 2-17;Susan Buck-Morss,"WalterBenjamin-Revolutionary Writer(I),"New Left Review, no. 128 (July-August 1981), and "Walter Benjamin-RevolutionaryWriter(II)," New Left Review, no. 129(Sept.-Oct. 1981);Jirgen Habermas,"Conscious-ness-Raising or Redemptive Criticism," New German Critique, 17 (Spring 1979), pp.30-59; Charles Rosen, "The Ruins of Walter BenJamin"and "The Origins of WalterBenjamin," n New York Reviewof Books, Oct. 27, 1977,and Nov. 10, 1977,respectively;Gershom Scholem, "WalterBenjamin"and "Walter BenJaminand His Angel," in Scho-lem, On Jews and Judaism in Crisis (New York: Schocken, 1976), pp. 172-197, and198-236, respectively; Gershom Scholem, WalterBenjamin: The Story of a Friendship(London: Faber and Faber,1982);Susan Sontag, Introductionto One-WayStreet, trans.EdmundJephcott and KingsleyShorter (London: New Left Books, 1979),pp. 7-28;PeterSzondi, "Hope in the Past: On Walter Benjamin,"Critical Inquiry,4 (Spring, 1978), pp.491-506; Rolf Tiedemann, "Historical Materialism or Political Messianism?"The Philo-sophical Forum, 15, 1-2 (Fall-Winter, 1983-84), pp. 71-104; Irving Wohlfarth, "On theMessianic Structure of WalterBenjamin'sLast Reflections," Glyph3, eds. Samuel Weberand Henry Sussman (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), pp. 148-212;Richard Wolin, WalterBenjamin:An Aesthetic of Redemption (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1982). New German Critique, 17 (Spring 1979)and The PhilosophicalForum, 15, 1-2(Fall-Winter, 1983-84)feature special issues devoted to WalterBenjamin.2. Scholem, 1982,pp. 221-222; Scholem, 1976, p. 231.3. Scholem, 1976, p. 235.4. Ibid, p. 231.5. Ibid, p. 235.6. Ibid., p. 231. Thesis I is apparently inspired by "Maelzel'sChess-Player"by EdgarAllan Poe (Essays and Stories, London: G. Bell & Sons, 1914, pp. 120-146). See Bahti,1979;and Tiedemann, "Historical Materialism," 1983-84, p.84, p. 101n. (note 46).


12/13

Beiner / BENJAMIN'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 4337. Scholem, 1976,pp. 232-236.8. See Arendt, Introduction to Illuminations, 1973, pp. 12-13; see also Scholem,

1976, pp. 233-234, on the kabbalistlc idea of tikkun (the messianic restoration renderednecessary by the "breakingof the vessels").In this essay I take for granted, without furtherexplicit discussion, that much of the Imageryof the "Theses" s drawnfrom the theologicalconcepts of Jewish mysticism. ElisabethYoung-Bruehl has claimed that the "Theses"wereactually written in response to Scholem's book, Major TrendsofJewish Mysticism. SeeYoung-Bruehl, Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1982), p. 161.9. Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia, no. 98 (London: New Left Books, 1974),p. 151. The quotation continues: "What transcends the ruling society is not only thepotentiality itdevelops but also all that which did not fit properlyinto the laws of historcalmovement. Theory must needs deal with cross-grained, opaque, unassimilated material,which as such admittedly has from the start an anachronistic quality, but is not whollyobsolete since it has outwitted the historical dynamic."10. Marx and Engels, Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1968),p. 99. On the opening page of the Eighteenth Brumaire,Marx makes his point even morestarkly:"Thetradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmareon the brain ofthe living "(Ibid., p. 97). See Susan Buck-Morss, Sept.-Oct. 1981,p. 84n. (note 179);andTiedemann, 1983-84, p. 79.11. This repudiation of universal history is succinctly expressed by Adorno: "Nouniversal history leads from savagery to humanitarianism, but there is one leading fromthe slingshot to the megaton bomb." Negative Dialectics (New York: Seabury Press,1973), p. 320; quoted by Richard Wolin, 1982, p. 270.12. There are important analogies to be drawn between Benjamin's philosophy ofhistory and Hannah Arendt's idea of judging, as formulated in the texts collected inLectures on Kant's Political Philosophy, ed. Ronald Beiner (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1982). Arendt, too, was committed to antihistoncist historiography.Although her reflections were presented as a general account of judging as a mentalfaculty, what she really offers is a theory of historical judgment. Arendt was concernedwith the judgment of the political spectator reflecting on "what has been," a capacity ofreflectivejudgment exemplified preeminently in the activity of the historian. An adequatetheory of historicaljudgment, she implies, depends upon defeating the assumptions,whichshe associates with Hegel and Marx, that there is such a thing as progress of the humanrace and that all things should be measured by the criterion of success. Against suchhistoncist assumptions, she appeals to the autonomy of the judging spectator. Autono-mousjudgment is identified with what she calls the "backwardglance"of the historian (asopposed to Hegel's Weltgeschichteas Weltgericht:udgment pronounced bythe course ofworld history). Historiography redeems those who are left behind by the historicalprocess. This Benjaminian conception is expressed perfectly in the epigram she quotesfrom Cato the Elder: "Thevictorious cause pleased the gods, but the defeated one pleasesCato" (Beiner, 1982, pp. 4-5). For specific discussion of some of the parallels betweenBenjamin and Arendt, see my interpretive essay included in the volume, pp. 155-156.13. For a critique of mainstream Marxism from the point of view of thesis XII, seeChristian Lenhardt, "Anamnestic Solidarity: The Proletariat and its Manes," Telos, 25(Fall 1975), pp. 133-154. Lenhardt's citations from Horkheimer are also relevant m thiscontext.

14. Cf. Tiedemann and Schweppenhauser, 1972-1982, I, 3, p. 1228, on Brecht'smisunderstandingof the import of thesis X, and Tiedemann, 1983-84,pp. 71, 90, and 103n.(note 60), where Tiedemann argues convincingly that the main, if unspoken, target of


13/13

434 POLITICAL THEORY / AUGUST 1984thesis X is not the Social Democrats, as the subsequent theses would lead one to believe,but rather the Communists.

15. Lenhardt, "Anamnestic Solidarity," pp. 137, 137n. (note 7), pp. 146-148 (which includes discussion of the passages from the Eighteenth Brumaire citedabove). Tiedemann says that "Benjaminis inconclusive regardingthe relationshipof hisconcept of history to that of Marx," but Tiedemann leaves little doubt about how hebelieves the equivocation is resolved. Whereas Blanqui is-rather implausibly-pairedwith Marx in thesis XII, it is clear that in the formulation of Benjamin's concept ofrevolution, Blanqui wins out over Marx. Despite what Benjamin says in thesis XIV, forMarx revolution is not a"leapin the open air of history."See Tiedemann, 1983-84,pp. 93,95-96, and 103n. (note 67).16. Tiedeman and Schweppenhauser, 1972-1982,I, 3, p. 1232. Cf. Wohlfarth, 1978,p.168;and Tiedemann, 1983-84,p. 95.17. For a similarjudgmentof the significanceof the "Theses," ee RichardWolin, 1982,chapter eight.18. Tiedeman and Schweppenhauser, 1972-1982, I, 3, p. 1227. Cf. Timothy Bahti,1979, p. 3; Wolin, 1982, p. 260; and Tiedemann, 1983-84, p. 71.19. Benjamin, 1979, pp. 349-386, and 155-156, respectively. Cf. "Publisher's Note,"ibid., pp. 31, 41-42.20. See Wolin, 1972-1982,p. 259. In Tiedeman and Schweppenhauser, 1972-1982, , 3,pp. 1238-1239,Benjamin produces a list of a (presumably) intended series of critiques,thelast of which reads:"critiqueof Marx's theory of progress."Cf. Tiedemann, 1983-84, p.103n. (note 67).

21. In a letter to the Adornos, Benjamindrewspecialattentionto thesisXVII, which hecharacterized as central to a proper methodological understandingof his work. Tiedemanand Schweppenhauser, 1972-1982, I, 3, pp. 1223, 1226. Cf. Tiedemann, 1983-84, p. 80.22. Susan Buck-Morss, July-August 1981, pp. 52-53. Cf. Tiedemann, 1983-84,p. 9723. Adorno, 1982, p. 239.24. Das Passagenwerk, Tiedeman and Schweppenhauser, 1972-1982, by MichaelRosen in the Times Literary Supplement, Feb. 4, 1983, p. 109. A selection from theArcadesprojectdirectlyrelevant to the"Theses" s contained in ThePhilosophical Forum,15, 1-2(Fall-Winter, 1983-84),pp. 1-39,entitled "N [Theoretics of Knowledge; Theory ofProgress]."25. Benjamin, 1983-84,p. 31.26. Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, 1982, pp. 162, 166.27. Jiirgen Habermas, "The German Idealism of the Jewish Philosophers," inPhilosophical-Political Profiles (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983), p. 34; quoted byScholem, 1976, p. 231.

Ronald Bemeris Lecturerin Politics at the University of Southampton, England.During 1983-85, he is visiting WebsterFellow in the Humanities and AssistantProfessor of Philosophy at Queen's University, Canada. He is editor of HannahArendt's Lectures on Kant's Political Philosophy (University of Chicago Press,1982), and author of Political Judgment (Methuen and University of ChicagoPress, 1983).

BEINER, Ronald. Walter Benjamin's Philosophy of History

Documents

Transcript of BEINER, Ronald. Walter Benjamin's Philosophy of History