Friedman - The Spectral Legacy of Althusser the Symptom and Its Return

7/27/2019 Friedman - The Spectral Legacy of Althusser the Symptom and Its Return

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/friedman-the-spectral-legacy-of-althusser-the-symptom-and-its-return 1/19

The Spectral Legacy of Althusser: The Symptom and Its Return

Author(s): Geraldine FriedmanReviewed work(s):Source: Yale French Studies, No. 88, Depositions: Althusser, Balibar, Macherey, and the Laborof Reading (1995), pp. 165-182Published by: Yale University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930106 .

Accessed: 08/01/2012 23:47

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].

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=yale

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930106?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930106?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale



GERALDINE FRIEDMAN

The SpectralLegacyofAlthusser:

The Symptom nd ItsReturn

Althusserlwayswrote ut of conjuncturehatwasbothphilosophi-cal andpolitical,but even fwe limitourselves o thephilosophicalAlthusser, e find hathis egacy s already ouble.First, heres histremendousheoreticalffortoelaborate rigorous ialecticalmate-rialismwhosediscoursewouldbeadequate o tsauthentically ate-rialist oncepts.At its core, hiseffortoproduce exts hat aywhattheymean and mean whatthey ay s a philosophical roject,which,bypurgingheMarxian orpus ndtraditionf peculativendempiri-cistbacksliding,opes oarrivet aMarxist cience hat struly cien-tific.What mergess a surprise,owever,s that heconceptualworkthatproduces cience akesplacenotatthewell-establishedenter fMarxian heory ut at thosemarginal iteswhereMarx'stheoreticalrigor alters:

Asciencenly rogresses,.e.,ives, y he xtremettentiontpaysothepointswheret s theoreticallyragile.y hese tandards,tde-pendsessforts ife nwhattknowshan nwhattdoesnotknow:its bsolutereconditionstofocusn his nknown,nd opose t nthe igourf problem.

In theseplaces,or "symptoms" s Althusser alls them, Marxshowsus in a thousandways hepresence f concept ssential ohis

1. LouisAlthusserndEtienne alibar, eading Capital, hereafterC, rans. enBrewsterNewYork:Verso, 979), 0; first ublished s Lire e Capital,hereafterC, byLouisAlthusser,tienne alibar, acques anci&re, oger stablet,ndPierreMacherey,

4 vols. Paris: rancoisMaspero: 971-75), ol. 1,31. Allsubsequenteferenceso thiswork re othese ditions. nglish ranslationsillbe given n the ext, xceptwhen hequotations briefr find t necessaryoworkwith he riginalrenchn themain ext.

YFS 88,Depositions, d.Lezra,C 1995byYale University.

165



166 YaleFrench tudies

thought, ut absentfrom is discourse"RC,30).The implied nade-quationbetweenmeaningnd anguage rises,nAlthusserianerms,fromMarx's "epistemological reak"with the Feuerbachian nd

Hegelian raditionsn whichhe was educated.n thisview, hematureMarxworkswithin completely ifferentheoretical tructure r"problematic"rom hat fhisprecursors,structurehatdetermineswhat counts s a question s well as ananswerRC,25).2The revolu-tionary haracterf this break s whatproduces he symptom. re-ciselybecausetheconceptsMarxwas inventingidnotyetexist,hehadno choicebuttoborrowheformulationsf heproblematicromwhichhehadbroken rtospeak nmetaphors. s aninadequate on-

cept hatdemands heproductionf nadequateone,the ymptomsthe tarting oint orAlthusser's hilosophical ork.Theelaborationofa Marxist hilosophyhusdepends nfirst ecognizinghe "weakspots" n Marx's exts,ndthis anoccur nlybywhatAlthusserallsa "symptomatic eading"or "lecturesymptomnale" hat attendspainstakinglyo Marx'sfiguresndtheoretical orrowings.orthisreason,Althusser's hilosophicalegacy annotbesimply search orthe truth ontained nMarxian oncepts; tmust also be a legacy f

readinghat akesMarx's anguage eriously. et work nor nspiredbyAlthusser enerallygnores his ntimate onnection, reatinghetext s the ransparentmbodimentf n dealmeaning.With ery ewexceptions,Althusserians ave focused n Althusser's heory,spe-ciallyhis theoryf deology,t theexpense f the ecture ymptom-nale. Now,this situationmight e understandablen the social sci-ences,but t spuzzlingn the tudy f iterature,field hat ould bedefineds a reading ractice.t is almost s if iterary lthusserianshadactively ecidednottosee Althusser'sheoryfreading.3

2. ForAlthusser'sxplicit laborationf he"epistemologicalreak," concept twork verywheren his writing,ee the ntroductionToday" oForMarx, rans. enBrewsterNew York:Verso, 990), 2-38; hereafterM. In PourMarx, d. LouisAl-thusser Paris:FrancoisMaspero,1968), ee 24-30; hereafterM. As with Reading"Capital"and Lire e Capital, ubsequent assages rom ndreferenceso theEnglishtranslation illgenerallyegivenn thetext.

3. Themostnotable xceptions EllenRooney'seductive easoning: luralismsthe Problematic f Contemporaryiterary heory Ithaca:CornellUniversity ress,1989),whichdevelops theoryfreading rom lthusser'sectureymptomnale.erryEagleton's riticismnd Ideology London:New Left ooks,1976) nd Marxism ndLiterary riticismLos Angeles:UniversityfCalifornia ress,1976)andCatherineBelsey'sCritical ractice London:Methuen, 980) reworks y tudents f iteraturethat, espite heir oncernwith anguage, ypass symptomaticeading" odevelopMarxist heoryf iteratureeavilynflectedyAlthusser's heoryf deology. an-



GERALDINE FRIEDMAN 167

This persistentnonseeing partakesofthe blindness thatcharacter-izes thesymptom tself.For hesymptom egisters henecessary nvisi-bility fMarx's revolutionary ew objectswithin pre-Marxian erspec-tive that

bydefinition xcludes them.As Althusserwrites, hese objectsare nvisible ecause they rerejectednprinciple,epressedromhefield fthevisible: ndthat swhy heir leeting resencenthefieldwhen tdoes occur invery eculiar ndsymptomaticircumstances)goesunperceived,nd becomes iterallyn undivulgeablebsence-sincethewhole function fthefield s not to see them, o forbidnysightingfthem. RC,2614

guage nd Materialism,yRosalind oward ndJohn llis, nd"ReferencendDissem-ination:Althusserftererrida, byThomasE.Lewis Diacritics: Review fContem-poraryCriticism 5/4 Winter 9851: 7-56), do not mentionAlthusser's heory freading utnonethelesserform symptomaticeading fhim, n thefirst ase of he"imaginary,"language,"nd he subject" nd n the econd f representation,"pro-duction,"nd"reproduction." ndrew arker,nhis excellent Futures orMarxism:AnAppreciationfAlthusser," hich ppearedn thesame number fDiacritics sLewis's rticle, eads othMarx ndAlthussernrelation o the heoryf eading e seesthem ooffer57-72).Michael prinker'sImaginary elations: lthusserndMaterial-ist Aesthetics," in Imaginary Relations: Aesthetics and Ideology in the Theory ofHistoricalMaterialismNewYork:Verso, ew Left ooks,1987)begins o doa symp-tomatic eading fAlthusser'smetaphorf he heater t the ndof Marx'smmenseTheoretical evolution,"ut he empirico-aesthetic"urn hat prinker'sreatmentfthis igureakesmars n otherwisexcellent iscussion289-95).As the itle uggests,Steven .Smith'sReadingAlthusser: nEssayonStructural arxismIthaca:Cornell,1984)addresses heproblem freadingnAlthusserutfrom deeply mpiricist er-spective hat annot eally ngage heproblem75-82).

4. The symptom s blindness uggestsn oedipalreading fReading "Capital,"whichwe can only ketch ere.AccordingoAlthusser,hevulgarMarxist nterpreta-tion sees in thematerialist ialectic "happy nion" "unionheureuse," C, 1:105)between icardondHegel hat stheoreticallynproblematic.hesymptomaticead-

ing, n thecontrary,inds n Marxrealtheoreticalapses, n brief lank lashes,nvisiblenthe ight f heproof:words hathang n mid-airlthough heyeem obe nsertednto henecessityof he hought,udgementshich lose rreversiblyith false bviousness hevery pacewhich eemed obeopening eforeeason.RC,861

Marx hus oesfromeing hepotent, rocreativeathernagoodmarriageo anonanistorpractitionerfcoitus nterruptushodisseminates is words n the irbecausehecannot nsert is conceptsntothematernal ody fthought.n short, ymptomaticreading,nrevealinghe blindedye" RC,26)of hepre-Marxianheoreticalroblem-

atic, ubjectsMarx o ymbolicastration,hich sperhaps otunrelatedothe onceptofthe social totalitys an articulated ody. am indebted o Diane Rubenstein orsuggestinghis ine of houghtn Marx's osition s fathern Althusser.

The imageofMarx s potent athernthefirst,mmediate eadingfthetext lsosuggests rathertartlingewunderstandingf thecommonAlthusserian ord in-



168 Yale French tudies

But from heperspectivefthenew problematic, lacingAlthusser'stheory freading t the center fhis projectmeans reading ot onlyMarxbut also Althusser.nperformingustsuch a reading,hispaper

will showthenecessary ependencefAlthusser's heoreticalrojecton itsfigures,nd, by mplication,he nseparabilityfthe twoAl-thusserianegacies.This s, after ll, only o assume heburden assedon to thereader n Part ofReading "Capital": ". . . thepapers ou reabouttoread . . . donot escapethe aw I havepronouncedthe awofthe ymptom]-assuminghat hey ave omeclaimtobe treated,orthetimebeing t east, s discourseswith theoreticalmeaning . ."RC,28). Sinceto readAlthusserheoreticallys to read his sympto-

maticfigures, eshall seethatwemust pply o himthedirective eformulates ithregard o Marx:thenecessityf pproachinghetextin the originalRC,14). For f anguagematters, ranslation lso be-comesan issue.

As theproductionf dequate oncepts, ymptomaticeadings aphilosophical ork f orrectionhat vokes figure lthusser ses nForMarxforhis nonphilosophical,olitically ngaged outh: Inourphilosophicalmemorytremains heperiod f ntellectualsn arms,

hunting uterror rom ll tshiding-places"22). n Reading Capital,"thispoliticalhunt s replaced y philosophicalne that racks ownthe variousmisreadingsfMarxism-thehistoricist,hehumanist,the empiricist, he mechanist, he economist, nd the Hegelian(mis)interpretations-inrder osubmit hem oradical ritique. etsomethingtrangeccurs n theeffortopurge hese rrors. he read-ing thatworkson thesymptomworks tself s a symptom, astingdoubt n whethert s ever ossible oread orrectly.hus,accordingto itsauthors,what makesReading "Capital" a readings its flaws:

The followingaperswere eliverednthecourse f seminar nCapital eld tthe coleNormaleuperieurearlyn1965. hey ear

sert" "inserer"),s, for nstance, henAlthusserpeaks f actions nsertedntoprac-tices" n "Ideology nd deological tateApparatusesNotesToward n nvestigation),"in Lenin and Philosophy nd Other ssays, rans. en BrewsterNew York:MonthlyReview ress, 971), 68.Subsequenteferenceso this ollectionwillappearn the extas LP.All the above referencesnd Althusser's ormulationf the relation etweenHegel and Marxas one of flirtation"kokettieren"),hichwill be discussedbelow,suggest hat esire s not imply bsent rom lthusser'sexts, lthough e cannot ee tfromwithin is theoretical roblematic.erhapst s most ccurate o saythatdesirenever eceives heoreticallaborationnAlthusser,ut t is presentn his texts s asymptomo be read.




themark f hese ircumstances: otonly n their onstruction,heirrhythm,heir idactic roral tyle, utalsoand above ll in their is-crepancies, he repetitions, esitations nduncertainteps n theirinvestigations. ecould, f ourse, avegone ver hem t our eisure,correctedhem neagainst heother,educed hemarginfvariationbetween hem, nified heir erminology,heirhypotheses nd theirconclusions o thebestofour bility,nd set out their ontentsnthesystematic rameworkf single iscourse-in otherwords,wecouldhave tried omakea finishedwork ut ofthem.Butratherhanpre-tending hey rewhat heyhouldhavebeen,wepreferopresenthemforwhat hey re:precisely,ncomplete exts, hemere eginningsfreading.RC,13;authors' mphasis]

In refusing he perfectionofcompleteness,this passage tells us thatreading s not the discoveryof a preformed, lreadywhole object butaworkprocess,a productionwhich leaves traces,because it is an activ-ity with a history.Only when one readinghas alreadytaken place oranothercan still occur do certain moments emergeas discrepant,re-dundant,or uncertain.

Ifwe look forthe historyof Althusser's reading,we find t mostobviouslyin the lists ofomissions and errorswhich he realizes retro-spectivelyand then positions in the prefacesto his works. "To MyEnglish Readers," theprefatoryextof ForMarx, ends with what theauthor, n a self-consciously talinist diom,calls a "'self-criticism,"'and its confessionalpages make two related denunciations. First,Al-thusser udges his engagementof "the question ofthe union oftheoryandpractice"to be one-sided,forhe considers tonly"within theoret-ical practice"' but not "within political practice." Second, he failsclearlyto "distinguish[ philosophyfrom cience" (FM, 15).5His first

words nReading "Capital" signalsimilarterminological mbiguitiesand the more substantive error f his "unilateral andthereforenaccu-rate . . . definitionofphilosophyas a theoryoftheoreticalpractice."(He later"corrects" this to therepresentation f "the class strugglentheory.6) Like that firstnadequate definition fphilosophy, ll theseslips pointtoa "'theoreticist' tendency"thatAlthusserfinds ndcon-demns in himself RC, 8).

5. This iminaryext, hich recedeshe refaceToday""Aujourd'hui"),oeshotappear n the French riginal, ourMarx. n this quotation nd the onebelow, heemphasissAlthusser's.

6. Althusser,Philosophy s a Revolutionary eapon," nterviewonducted yMariaAntonietta acciocchi, n Lenin nd Philosophynd Other ssays.



170 YaleFrench tudies

What s remarkablebouttheseritual xpost facto onfessionssthat heymime rhythmfreadinghatAlthusser iscoversnMarx.Just s Marxwrites hat n the first olumeof Capital he had "co-

quettled]"withHegel'sterminologyFM,197n38),we could say thatAlthusserndulges n "raffishlirtation"RC,29) with thenonrigor-ous, whichhe then everelyorrects. hispattern uggests hat tispossibleto read aright nly fter he fact, ut thisretroactivityivesthe history freading paradoxically historicist haracter,n thespecial ensethat MarxismsNotaHistoricism,as oneof hechap-ter itles fReading Capital" announces. or hetext,ikethe ocialformation,unctionss anAlthusseriancomplex tructured hole"

with elativelyutonomousevels.7Thuswemightonceive he heo-reticalproblematics the nfrastructurendtheongoingwork fcor-rective eading s thearticulateduperstructure.)s the apre's-coupprefacesndfrequent ppendices oAlthusser's rticlesmakeespe-cially lear, hese evels achhave heir wn emporal hythm.here sno one textualmoment hatconstitutesn "essential ection,"or arepresentativeross section of thewhole, because in sucha synec-dochal elation,achpartwouldbe referableothe amehomogeneous

temporality.ncontrast, lthusser'self-reading,onstituted ya laginherent n all reading, akesplace in a nonpunctual, oncontem-poraneous ime,whichprecludes nyfullpresentnwhichMarx orAlthusser ould"get tright."8 hus, n correctingheempiricistrmetaphysicistrrorsf ther eaders, lthusserroduces ewerrorsfhisown,whichhe calls theoreticist.tseemsthathowevermany insonepreface iscovers,nother,ater ne willalwaysfindmore.

These lapses mightseem like accidentsor subjectivefailings,

which ouldhaveoccurredrnot.But n ight fAlthusser'sheoryfreading, hey oint o an inevitable rrorntrinsico that heory,e-cause for ll its desired orrectness,ymptomatic eadings consti-tutedbya certain uilt:

Hence philosophicaleadingfCapital s quite heoppositef ninnocenteading.t s a guilty eading,utnotonethat bsolvests

7. Althusser evelops hisconceptn "On the Materialist ialectic: On theUn-evenness fOrigins,"nFM,161-218, specially 93-200andfollowing.8. Althusser's ritique f historicism urns n his critique f the metaphysical

conceptionf ime t workn t.Seethe hapterMarxismsNot aHistoricism"nRC,119-44, especially 32-38,where heconcepts f"contemporaneity"nd the "essen-tialsection" redeveloped.




crime nconfessingt. On thecontrary,t takes heresponsibilityorits crime s a "justified rime" nddefendstbyprovingtsnecessity.[RC, 15]

What is rendered s "crime" in this passage is "faute," a Frenchwordwhich also means "mistake." And this mistake s what thephilosophi-cal reading "defends," or in French "defend." But the original allows asense which is elided in English,for defendre," he infinitive f"de-fend," also means to prohibit.Yet this elision is necessary becauseEnglish has no one wordthatcombines the two senses of the French.Language thus forces he translatornto anunavoidable error, reciselywherethe textspeaks of ts own "necessary"or"good" error,which it

both defendsand prohibits.Bothnecessaryand disallowed and there-foreneitherquite one northe other, his error as a curious status: byproviding starting lace, it is the conditionofpossibilityfor igorousAlthusserianreadingbut also the unavoidable limitof thatrigor.

The "faute" is the symptom n Marx's text, and, in principle, tsfaultiness is the inadequacy ofits concept, signaled by its figuricity.But, in presenting he law of the symptom,Althusser himself seemsable to write only in the most symptomaticofmetaphors,ofwhich

"symptom" is in fact one.9 Thus, in a footnote,he foregrounds hefiguricityf the discourse in which he speaks of Marx's figures:

The recoursemade in thistextto spatial metaphorsfield, errain,space, ite, ituation, osition, tc.)posesa theoreticalroblem: heproblem f thevalidity f ts claimto existence n a discoursewithscientificretensions.heproblemmay e formulatedsfollows:whydoesa certain orm f cientific iscourse ecessarily eed the use ofmetaphors orrowed rom on-scientificisciplines? RC, 26n8;A1-thusser'smphasis]

As symptom, hefigure, hen, s not a mere decorationorconvenientheuristic device butthenecessary error,whichrequiresthat we studyMarx's (and every heoretical uthor's) "typical metaphors." n cluster-

9. These remarks ould be extended o include ll Althusser's oncepts, orheregularly egisters dissatisfaction ith themthatmarks hem s incomplete, or-rowed,ndnot uite ight. or xample, e signals he epistemologicalreak" s Bache-lard'sformulationFM, 32) and apologizes orusingthe psychoanalyticerm over-

determined"n preferenceo "the astonishingxpression-complexly-structurally-unevenly etermined"FM, 209). Althusser's erminologicalnxieties ndicatethesymptomaticharacterfhis concepts, hich nturn ndicates henoveltyfhis theo-retical nterprise: e is hesitantly onstructing theory hatdoes not yet exist ntotality.




ing round he syet nnameable oncept,hey re"part f theory fthehistory f heproductionfknowledges"RC, 121n13 ndn14) ndthus ntegral o Marx's nd Althusser'sheoretical ork.Yet t s the

very ecessity fthe symptomhathas ledevenwell-intentionedn-terpretersfMarx stray, roducingonflictingnterpretations.or,nbeingforced o thinkhis radicalbreakfromHegelin Hegeliancon-cepts,Marxhimself

introducledjneffectfdislocationetweenhe emanticieldf ri-gin rom hich e borrowedisconcepts,nd he ield f onceptualobjectsowhichhey erepplied....

This, atherhan ny endentiousnessn their art,s the eason

whyo many fMarx'snheritorsnd upportersave roducednac-curatestimatesf is hought,hile laiming,extnhand,hatheyremainrue o the etter fwhathe wrote."RC,121;emphasisAlthusser's]

Ironically,t turns utthatthevery idelityf thecommentatorsoMarx's etterhas keptthemfrom eading is figuresnd from venposingthequestionoftherelation f discourse o concept.Yetthe

dislocationbetweendiscourse ndconcept s "notpeculiar o Marxbutcommon oeverycientific ounding oment nd to all scientificproductionenerally"RC,121n14).

Althusser hus nsists nthefigurer errors notonlynecessarybut also foundational,nd this foundationalrrormpliesa radicalAlthusserianritique fmetaphysicshat or certain istance ravelsstepfor teponthesamepath s Derrida's.ndeed, heplaceofmeta-phor nthe discourse fphilosophys theproblematicf"WhiteMy-

thology,"problematichatnReading "Capital" founds hepracticeof he symptomaticeadings "doublereading."'10t s inelaboratingthistextual heoryhatAlthusser'smetaphorsocusmost harplyntheconcept, ecause tsmodeof ppearanceswhat s at stakewhenwe read. hisbecomes learestn thepassage n "innocent"eading,hedegreeerofrom hich heguiltylectureymptomnale"eviates.Anunderstandingf heworld s a text obetaken t facevalue, nnocentreadings what he till deological YoungMarx"practiced efore e

inventedMarxism ndtherebywitched oa scientific roblematic:

10. Froma verydifferenterspective,ewis's "Referencend Dissemination"makesmetaphor placefromwhich o formulateherelation etweenAlthusser ndDerrida 45-53).




For heYoungMarx, o know heessenceofthings, heessenceofthehistorical umanworld, f ts economic, olitical, esthetic nd reli-giousproductions, as simply oread lesen, erauslesen)n black ndwhite hepresence f he"abstract" ssence n the ransparencyf ts

"concrete" xistence. his mmediate eading fessence n existenceexpresses hereligiousmodel fHegel'sAbsoluteKnowledge,hat ndofHistorynwhich heconcept t last becomesfully isible, resentamongus inperson, angiblen its sensory xistence-in whichthisbread, hisbody, his ace nd thismanaretheSpirit imself. his setsus ontheroad ounderstandinghat heyearningor reading t sight,forGalileo's GreatBookofthe World'tself,s older han ll science,thatt s still ilently onderinghereligiousantasiesf piphany ndparousia,ndthefascinating yth f he criptures,nwhich hebodyoftruth, ressedn its words,s the Book: the Bible. This makes ussuspect hat o treat ature rreality s a Book, nwhich, ccordingoGalileo, s spoken he ilent iscourse f languagewhose"charactersare riangles,ircles ndother eometricaligures,"t wasnecessaryohave a certaindea ofreadingwhichmakesa written iscourse heimmediate ransparencyfthe true, nd thereal discourse f voice.[RC, 16;Althusser'smphasis]

This incarnational,consubstantial discourse,withall its Christian

resonances, is a logocentric anguage ifever there was one, for t de-pendson a metaphysics nwhichtruth nhabits thewordas thesoul ofthe body. n such a transparent anguage, the concept appears "in per-son," a phrase thathas a noteworthy areer n English translationsofAlthusser. n French,thephraseis "en personnel"and, in either an-guage, t is unusual, ifnotunheardof, n philosophical discourseout-side Althusser. The translator, en Brewster, eems to have been dis-turbedby the oddness ofthe ocution, because inhis 1969 rendering f

ForMarx, he generallynormalizes it as "as such." But when he En-glishes Reading "Capital" the nextyear,he often ranslates t iterally,as in the passage quoted above,as "in person."Brewster's wochoices,it happens, arenotunrelatedtoAlthusser's theoryofreading.On theone hand, the translator'sdecision to preservethe phrase suggestsarealizationthat tsvery ddness signifies.The words"en personne"infactpointto themselves as anAlthusserian ymptom,which thetrans-latorreproduceswhen he translates iterally. utthephrasealso names

theembodyingpersonification ftheconceptthatgoeswith nnocentreading. Thus, when the translator lides "en personnel"he again re-fusesthe text s thetransparent iscourseoftruth.This means thatwehave not a symptomatic originaland a "normal" translation but two




textswith twodifferentindsofsymptoms." n their wn distinctways, hen, he trangenessf heFrench ndthe moothness f heEn-glishbothdemand hesymptomaticeadinghat s attentiveowhat

Althusseralls thebreaksna seeminglyull iscourseRC, 0), 2 totheplaceswhere heHegelian ormulaereneitherheperfectlymbodiedconcepts hey laimtobenormereplayorraffishlirtation,

but he ction f realdrama,nwhich ld onceptsesperatelylaythe art f omethingbsent hichs nameless,norderocall tontothe tagenperson-whereashey nly produce"tspresencentheirfailures,nthe islocationetweenhe haractersnd heiroles.RC,29;Althusser'smphasis]13

Accordingothispassage, he ymptomstheradicalmpossibilityofthe concept o appear inperson," ot ust because thasnonamebut because tis still ntheprocess fbeingproduced. he symptomthus functionsike an aberrant igurewith no literal ounterpart,catachresis.WhenAlthusser nsists hat wemusttakethesewords[thewords fhis spatialfigures]iterally"RC, 25), we shouldunder-standhimtobereferringreciselyotheir atachrestictatus: hey re

11. Compare he relationwe are suggestingetween he French riginalnd theEnglish ranslation ithAlthusser's ccount f therelation etweenMarx's ympto-matic exts nd a rigoroushilosophical eading f hem:

I heard his ilence s thepossibleweakness f discourse nder hepressureand repressivectionofanother iscourse,which akes the place of thefirstdiscourse n favourf hisrepression,ndspeaks n its silence: heempiricistdiscourse. ll I didwas to make this ilence n thefirst iscourse peak,dis-sipating he econd. RC,90; Althusser's mphasis]

12. It s not n orderoblame he ranslatorhatwe havepointeduthiselisions, utratheroshow hat roblemsf ranslatingeading Capital" re ntimatelyaught p

in Althusser'sheoryfreading.huswe argelygreewith awrence enuti, hotriestodevelop materialmodelof ranslationrom hat heory. rguinggainst hedomi-nant racticef luent,r ransparent,ranslation,enutiwrites: It scertainlysign ftheextremelynpropitiousircumstancesn which ranslationspracticedoday hatwe must asten nflawsn the ranslator's orkn order ogain ecognitionort" "TheTranslator'snvisibility,"riticism 8/2 Spring9861: 09).The notion ftheneces-sary rrors, however,utsideVenuti'snalysis.

13. The complete assage n French eads:

Il n'estpeut-6tre as interdit lors de penser ue si Marx"joue" si bien,encertainsassages, esformulesegeliennes,e eun'estpasseulementlegance

ou derision,mais, u sensfort,e jeu d'un drame eel, ii d'anciens onceptsjouent esesperemente r6led'unabsent, uin'apas denom,pour 'appeler npersonneur ascene, alors qu'ilsn'en produisent"apresence uedans eursrates, ans e decalage ntre espersonnagest esr6les. LC, 1:31;Althusser'semphasis]




not, trictlypeaking,igures,ut secondproper ensewhere here sno first ne. It wouldseem to be the goal ofAlthusser's heoreticalwork oproduce he oncept n person ndthus enormalizehefigure,

aswhenhewrites: Inthebriefmoment f Marx's]emporaryilencewe aresimply eturningohim thespeech hat s his own" RC, 144).But anothermetaphor or he symptom, he "blank" or gap in theseeminglyull ext,'4 uggestshat hiswouldbe tooquickly orecu-perateAlthusser's ritique fmetaphysics.n contrastothosemod-ern riticswho see Marxonly s completing heclassicaleconomists"on the basis of their rinciples, nd thereforeftheir roblematic"(RC, 85),Althusser oes notsimply ill hegapat itssite. nstead, ecompletely emaps nowledgeromhere, asington differentrinci-ples. nthis espect, e canagain akehisreadingfMarx s aguide orreading im,becauseAlthusser ctsout n his owntext hegeographi-calmetaphorf ontinents eapplies o Marx. f hefamiliarciencesofmathematics ndphysics havebeen nstalledn a number fgreat'continents,' . . Marx opened up a third continent to scientificknowledge: hecontinent fHistory."' WhatAlthusser'sheoreticalwork freading oesis to discover hatopening nd ts radicalnew-ness. The consequential eorganizationfknowledge,n whichbothMarx ndAlthusser articipate,efershe parousia" romised y hemetaphysicalonception f anguage,where, t theendofHistory,heconceptwouldreturn o ts proper ameorbody;for heopening fnew continent as created completely ifferentody.

Itturns utthat heoriginalext asalready poken f hisdeferral,albeitsymptomatically;or,nFrench,he"personne"nwhichtheconceptdoes or does notappear s also a negation. hus,dislocatingthe ncarnationalogicof mmediate eading,hephrase ffirmsnd

denies tthe ame time: he oncept ppearsnpropria ersona,n theproper erson,nd n"noone";theres no "one" in which he onceptadequately ersonifiestself; r,mostradically,noone" s theproperperson or he oncept oembodytselfn. Oncemore, he hematizingof hisphilosophical error" roduces necessaryrrorntranslation,becauseEnglish annot apture hedoubleness fthe French hrase.Embodiments thus thefigure fan impossible ersonification,he

14. Thisfigureppears, mong therplaces,nRC,22,86, 143,156. nthe riginal,tis calledthe "blanc" LC, 1:21, 105,183, nd 2:21).15. Althusser ses themetaphorn"Interviewn Philosophy,"onducted yMaria

Antonietta acciocchi,ncluded nLP, 15.The metaphorecurs requentlyhroughoutthecollection.




personificationfan impossible igure, hich s atonce theproblemfor nd ofreading,ince t poses the heoretical ossibility f laborat-ing dequate oncepts s the mpossibilityf hat ask.Now, ccording

to Althusser,n producinguch concepts,Marxbreaks rom he Ger-man ideologists nd fromhis own ideologicalyouthto establishscience, ndthesymptomatic eading fMarxrepeats hatbreak nmore dequateform. hustheburden fReading Capital" is tocon-tinueMarx'swork ftransformingn ideological roblematicnto ascientific ne. Sincethe ntithetical xpression en personne" amesthe ncompleteness s well as completeness f thattransformation,the ouple deology/scienceannot ethoughtutside he ouplefigu-

rative/literal.his is anotherway of sayingwhatAlthusser o oftenstresses: hat deology ecessarilynhabits cience fromwithin, ndscientific iscourse annotdispensewithmetaphor.'6

Now, o nsist, s I havedone, n theAlthusserian roblematics aproblem n figurationmight eem overwhelminglyo justify hecharge hat cademicshaveflockedoAlthusserian arxism ecauseofwhatonewriter alls "its evident cademicnature."117thappens,however,hatpersonification,s the ymptomf he ymptom,rises

where hephilosophical roject rticulateswithone ofthestrongestconjunctural ressuresn Althusser'swriting: Stalinism"and thetasks tposedfor aterMarxists. hisperiodnSoviethistory resentsin particularly rgent orm he problemof the adequate concept,which s thetheoretical ecessity f"call[ing]hings ytheir ames"or "their cientific ames" (FM,240 and247). For, n thiscase, thename, byvirtue fhaving function n a theoretical roblematic,produces olitical ffectsnd s thereforeot "mere"name.Thus, n"Marxism nd Humanism" n For Marxand later n a "Note" ap-pended o"Reply oJohnewis" nEssays nSelf-Criticism,lthussershows thatthe officialabels,"the cult ofpersonality"nd "Stalin-ism," imply nterpretationsossible onlywithin the pre-Marxianproblematic fhumanism, entered n theconcept Man."''8From

16. For ne statementf henecessary ersistencef deologyn every ocial total-ity, ncluding Communist ne, eeFM,232.

17. Ian Craib, Criticism nd Ideology: heory ndExperience," ontemporaryLiterature,2/4 Fall 1981):489-90.

18. Althusser,Note on The Critique f hePersonalityult,"' n "Reply o JohnLewis," n Essays n Self-Criticism,rans.Grahame ock London:New LeftBooks,1976); riginallyublished sReponse a Johnewis,Theorie,d.LouisAlthusserParis:FrancoisMaspero, 973).Subsequent eferenceso thisessaywill appear n the textunder he horteneditle Note."




thispoint fview, ll thedifficultiesf historical eriod rereducedto questionsofpsychologynd egality,he pathology hat eads oneman ruthlessly o violate the constitutional ights f others.And,

since thequestiondictates he terms f heanswer,he olution s tobe a newhumanism, he"Socialist Humanism"' thatwould recog-nize and respect oviet egality.19

Nothing ould oundmore thical han his witch rom terroristicrule o a benevolent ne.YetAlthusserejects hehumanistnterpreta-tionbecause t s an nstance fMarxists oing n nnocent eading hattakes heconcept s appearing otonly nperson ut na person. f,nthe cultofpersonality,all was for talin, hemanwho on the evelofimmediate eading laimed o be theSpirit, ow the logan s "All forMan" FM, 21).To avoid his ubstitutionf ne ncarnationalersoni-fication or nother, lthusser ontends hat t is notenough or heSovietUniontodenounce he crimes" nd"deviations" f heStalinyears. he denunciationmust lso bemade n terms fMarxist heory,because,otherwise, arxists hemselves dvance hevery rgumentsthat heir nemieshavetraditionallysedagainst hem.nsistingn acomplete reakwithhumanist oncepts, lthusser,n"Marxism ndHumanism," scribes oMarx ndhimselfspouses "theoreticalnti-

humanism" FM, 29).Now, his erm as beenwidelymisunderstoodbyAlthusser'sMarxist ndnon-Marxistpponentslike s advocatingbrutalitynd apologizing orStalin's crimes.But this s to confineAlthusser o a position hat emainswithin umanism s its nternalnegation.nfact,he"anti"ofhisneologismnnounces hatMarxismestablishes tstheory n an entirely ifferentasis: not a concept f"Man" (or ven realmen")but the nsemble f ocialrelations"FM,243),whichmustbe conceivedn terms f uchconcepts s "modeof

production,orces fproduction,elations fproduction,uperstruc-ture, deology,tc." FM, 44).20

19. As the officiallogan fthede-Stalinizationn theUSSR, "Socialist Human-ism"' also became, hrough oger araudy,hedoctrinef heFrench ommunist artyin the ixties.

20. For ucid explanations f Althusser's ntihumanism,ee Kavanaugh39)andAnderson124-25).Kavanaugh's ormulationf the humanistmisunderstandingsworth uoting or ts archness:Althussers taken s "asserting hatMarxists houldnotbe nice to people, rtake humanity'nto ccountnpolitical nd deological rac-

tice." The mostnotorious ondemnationo dateofAlthusser's heoreticalnd politi-cal opposition o the "Socialist Humanist"'form fde-Stalinizationas come fromthepen ofE. P. Thompson, hocalls Althusserhe onsummate talinist. ee the itleessay nThompson's hePovertyfTheory nd Other ssays Monthly eview ress,1978).




Fromthis perspective, lthusser econceptualizes nd thus alsorenames he yearsof Stalin'srule,proposingn his searchfor heirscientific onceptto call them,provisionally,he "Stalinian devia-

tion."Theadvantagef hisphrase, e tellsus, s thattenjoys heoret-ical egitimacyndfreedom rom heguilty hilosophical onnectionsthattaint he officialabels. As a bona fideMarxist oncept, devia-tion" replaces he notion ofa "personality ult," which s nowherefound n Marxist-Leninistheory.n ts slight ifferencerom Stalin-ist,"theadjective Stalinian" s intendedwhetherrnot t succeeds)tomake proper amerefer irstndforemosto ahistoricalmoment:"a certain eriod n thehistory ftheInternational abourMove-

ment" "Note," 81n3; Althusser's mphasis).21nthis hift rom er-sons to history,he phrase Staliniandeviation"participatesn theconceptualbreakfromhumanism,because the differencef Al-thusser's nterpretations that t ocatescauses preciselyn historicalnecessity: he passagefrom thedictatorshipf theproletariat"o"thewithering-awayf he State pparatus" nd "thecreation fnewforms fpolitical, conomic, ndcultural rganizations,orrespond-ingto this ransition"FM,238).

Therecourse o"SocialistHumanism"' s, accordingoAlthusser,a recourse o ideology,ndwe might uessthathe denounces t sovociferouslyecause tseffect as tohinder hedevelopmentfthenew forms equired or hefullrealization fCommunismn theSo-vietUnion. Since, s the SA's essay ellsus, egal nstitutionselongto theStateApparatusesLP,143), hewell-intentionedSocialistHu-manist"' emphasison preservingegality lso perpetuatedheverystatethatwas eventually upposedto disappear. hese theoreticalgrounds ombinewith hepolitical act hat official landishmentsf'socialisthumanism'were," s Perry ndersonuts t,"anideologicalplacebo-a substituteor enuine oliticalmeasures o eliminateter-ror, epression,nd dogmatism]ntheUSSR" to makeAlthusser on-demn the "cult of personality"nterpretations "a right-wingri-tique" [une critiquede droite] "Note," 82; Althusser'smphasis).22

Yet Althussermaintains hat the wide currency njoyedbythe

21. It is not easy to see how "Stalinian" s less connected o an individual han"Stalinist"s,butAlthussereems orecognizehepossible hortcomingsfhiscoinagewhenhe qualifies t as "provisional" ndemphasizes heneed "to look for" hename("Note,"81 and 79).

22. The quoted ines before he phrase rom Note" comefrom erry nderson,"Stalinism," rguments ithin nglishMarxism London:NLB and Verso, 980), 07.




ideological umanist xplanation uring e-Stalinization as a scien-tific, istorical xplanation: [t]he resent isproportionf hehistori-cal tasks o their onditions"FM, 38),23n otherwords, hefact hatthe onditionsnwhich he ransitionromlassdictatorshipo class-less society ouldbe accomplished idnotyet xist.What id xistwereobstacles, mongwhichAlthussermphasizes thetheoretical ondi-tions urrentlynherited yMarxist heoryromtspast-not justthedogmatism f the Stalinistperiod, ut also, from urther ack, theheritage fthedisastrouslypportunistnterpretationsftheSecondInternational"FM,240; Althusser's mphasis). ater, n "Note," heidentifies hese nterpretationss simultaneouslyconomist nd hu-manist,because their ne-sided mphasison productivityntailsasilence nthe lassownershipf hemeans f roduction,silence hatgetsfilledwiththeideologicalbelief n the "liberty fthePerson"("Note," 86 and88).His bold claim s that hese inkedproblems etthe stagefor the Staliniandeviation,"which"can be considered sa form.. of theposthumous evenge fthe Second nternational:as a revival f tsmaintendency""Note," 89;Althusser'smphasis).Sincethistendencyomes from profoundauses in historyndinthe conception fthe class strugglend ofclassposition,"Althusser

betson itssurvivinghe deathofStalin nd theTwentieth ongress,whichdenounced Stalinism" "Note," 92; Althusser'smphasis).

What can we say aboutthisanalysis?Purportingo proceedbyMarxist onceptswhose theoreticalnecessity"swell "established"(FM, 39),Althusserxplains heStalinian eviation ot imply nthebasis of a personbut in terms f the historical onditions hatpro-moted one man's "'psychology' to . . . a historicalfact" FM, 241). Yet,theoretical anction or ts existence otwithstanding,hereturn y-

pothesizedby Althussermakes Marxisthistory ound at least asGothic s Marxist. or he urvival cts s a ghastlyndghostlyeturnfrom hedead:despite enin's ifelong trugglegainst conomism,thas not "as yetbeen buriedby History" FM, 240; "la petitebour-geoisie, et son ideologie . . . n'ont pas encore ete enterreespar l'His-toire,"PM, 247) but continuesto take its "posthumous evenge"("Note," 89).

Thisuncanny arrativef vampiricfterlifeeemsatfirst lush

tostand nstrikingontrasto thetotal radication fpractical seu-

23. In French, cette nadequation resente,ntrees tacheshistoriques t leursconditions"PM, 245).




doconceptshat Marxism nd Humanism"describes s occurringnthe elaboration f cientificMarxist oncepts:

Thepracticaloncepthat ointedutfor s thedestinationfthedisplacementasbeen onsumednthedisplacementtself,he on-cept hat ointedutfor s the itefornvestigationsfrom ow nabsentromhenvestigationtself.FM, 44]

This displacement, hich sperhapshemostpunctual ormulationfthe pistemologicalreaknAlthusser,ccurswhen hepractical on-ceptthatactsas a signpost has beenconsumed,"n French, a eteconsomme"PM,255).Butdoes thesignpost isappear s definitively

asthepassage sserts? obe "consomme" lsomeans obecompleted,tobe consummated,state hat onnotes ull resence,n direct ppo-sition o theabsence hat esults rom eing onsumed. nthecase ofonepractical oncept, hisambiguityakes over hetextwitha ven-geance.When Althusser ejects realhumanism" s an inadequateconceptthatmerely ointsto a reality utside tself FM, 243),hedemands nstead-what else?-a conceptthat"provide[s]henewcontent" f hat ealityenpersonne"FM,242; emphasis dded).Justwheretheperson s refused s the foundation f one philosophy,treturnsnanother,morerigorousne as theproblematic ersonifica-tion thatwe have found obe thesymptom's ymptom.n fact, hewholestory fAlthusser's ffortoreplace hehumanistnterpreta-tion ofStalinismwitha rigorousMarxist nalysisofthe"Staliniandeviation" eads ike thehistoryf thisreturn. he "cult ofperson-ality," heghostlyundeath" ftheSecond nternational,umanismand antihumanismlike,eventheconsuming/consummatingreakitself,ll thesefunctionn theGothicplotsof Marxism ndHuman-

ism"and "Note" as thepolitical ndphilosophicalffectsf n aber-rantpersonification,hich is always excessively r insufficientlyembodied.

Theposthumous eturn fpersonificationnAlthusserianheorysuggestshat hecollapseofSovietCommunism nourmomentwillnotbeany moother r implerhan hepassagefrom hedictatorshipof heproletariato thewithering-awayf heStaten and ftertalin'smoment.f nything,nthe hiftomarketeformsnddemocracy,he

linkbetween conomism ndhumanism,whichAlthusser dvancedat his "personal isk" n 1972 "Note," 89),has comeinto theopen.Perhapswe arewitnessingts ultimaterevenge ow that, s in the




earlier eriod, heconditions reoverwhelminglyisproportionateotheirtask. Since the last daysof the Union and the first aysoftheCommonwealth,allsfor uthoritarianule-fromGorbachev,heleaders f heunsuccessful ugust oup, nd ven hedemocrat eltsin,who in 1991 attemptedo impose emergencyule n theChechen-IngushAutonomous epublic nd has more ecentlyed a war gainstit-have seemedto threaten "humanist" eturnfpersonalityoahistorical ole.24 nd ince his ssaywas first ompletedn the pringof1992, the exampleshave multiplied. ut,at present,we are alsowitnessingheother ide ofAlthusser's laimthatMarxism,whenit adoptsa humanist/economistdeology, can, in certain ircum-stances, e considereds andtreated s, evenpractised s a bourgeois

point ofview" "Note," 87,Althusser'smphasis).IfMarxism anfoster omethingike capitalism,n articlefrom

1992 in The New YorkReviewof Books suggests hat,by the sametoken,na Communist ociety, ourgeoisconomics s imited n howfart can develop. hus theRussianRepublic's urrentffortso ntro-duce a freemarket re beinghampered y whatmight e called sur-vivalsfrom hepast. In this transitional hase,a surreal ituationexists n which American dvertising ampaigns re plentiful ut

commodities carce, nd theresulting ontradictionsmerge orce-fullyn onesuch example he uthor ives: [t]heVidalSassoonad for'shampoo ndconditionernone' that unsonMoscow TV. . .":

24. For Gorbachev's equestfor pecial powers n his anticrisis lan, see SergeSchmemann,Gorbachev rders epublics o Halt RebelliousMoves,"TheNew YorkTimes,10 April1991, ec. A. The followingrticles eal withGorbachev'sttempt ostage imselfs a charismaticeader, he ndispensable anof hehourwho lone ouldstave ff returno theCold War ra slide nto haos:BenjaminWeiner,Mikhail he

MasterMagician,"The New York imes,16 June 991, ec. 3, and FrancisX. Clines,"Yeltsin's oes Back Away rom ffortoToppleHim,"TheNewYork imes, April1991, ec. A. In "The Good Czar' andtheWiseMen: A Sad Tale Retold," heNew YorkTimes,7 April1991, ec. 4, Serge chmemann uotes a glasnost-eraournalist, legPopstov, n thedesire or ulebypersonalitymongRussians.On Yeltsin's utocraticmoves, ee Serge chmemann,Yeltsin s TellingRussians o Brace or harpReform,"The New YorkTimes, 9 October 991, ec. A; Brumberg,6; and CelestineBohlen,"Split yMuslimRegion attlesheYeltsin amp, TheNewYork imes, 1November1991, ec.A. BothBrumbergndBohlen eporthat hemove gainst heMuslim reaofChechen-Ingushasangrilyondemnedndrejected y heRussian arliament,nclud-ingmanymembers ho usually upport eltsin taunchly.or he rrogationf mer-gency owers y he eaders f heunsuccessfuloupofAugust 991, ee the Declara-tionofEmergency"ecree y henActing resident ennadi.Yanayev,rintednTheNewYork imes, 0August 991, ec.A.




The very oncept s mystifyingn a place whereyoucountyourselflucky o find ny hampoo t all; furthermore,o udgeby henumberoftimeswomenhave asked mewhatconditioners, fewunderstandthetime-savingoint f heproduct. he Englishword conditioner"used in this ad has been employed n Russian only for "airconditioners.25

Hangingon thetranslation f single word, he ncomprehensibility fthisad in Russian tellsus, humorously, hatcapitalism, ikeMarxism,requiresthatthe rightnames be foundfor hings.The present "histori-cal mutation" to a market ystemwill thustakenotonlyhardwork onthe infrastructure ut also, forthe most practical ofreasons, a great

deal of theoretical labor to develop adequate concepts, whose finalformcannot be predictedat present. n a world where the futureofMarxism seems, at least fornow, bleak, this continuingneed for he-ory, nsofar s it s also a question of anguage,mightbe thetransmutedform hat Althusser's double legacytakes. This is to say thatthere sthepossibilityof an Althusserianreturn.

25. Jamey ambrell,Kasha ntheBrain," heNew York eview fBooks, 9/8(23April1992):27.

Friedman - The Spectral Legacy of Althusser the Symptom and Its Return

Documents

Transcript of Friedman - The Spectral Legacy of Althusser the Symptom and Its Return