TheoryandHisioryofLileralure Ediledby\vladGodzichandJochenSchulle.Sasst Volume76. Volume75. Volume74. Volume73. Volume72. Volume71. VolumeVolume68. Volume66. Volume64. Volume63. Volume62. Volume61. Volume60. Volume59. Volume58. Volume57. Volume56. Volume55. Volume54. Volume53. Volume52. Volume5 I. Volume50. Volume49. Volume48. Volume47. Volume46. Jean lucNancyTheInoperatil'{!Community ReyChowWomanandChineseModernity:ThePoliticsof ReadingbetweenWestandEast PaulJ .ThibaullSocialSemioticsasPraxis HeleneCixousReadingwithClariceLispector N.S.TrubelzkoyWritingsonLiterature NeillarsenModernismandHegemony PaulZumlhorOralPoetry:An Introduction HansRobertJaussQuestionand Ans wer: Formsof Dialogic Understanding PauldeManCriticalWritings,1953- 1978 DidierCosteNarrOliveasCommunication RenalOBarilliRhetoric DanielCOHomTex/andCulture TheodorW.AdornoKierkegaard:Constructionofthe Aesthetic Kri sli nRossTheEmergenceof SocialSpace:Rimbaud and theParisCommune LindsayWalersandWladGodzichReading de ManReading F.w.J.SchellingThePhilosophyof Art l oui sMarinPortraitof theKing PelerSIOlerdijkThinker onStage:NietlSche'sMaterialism PaulSmilhDiscerningtheSubject RedaBensma'iaTheBarthesEf fect EdmondCrosTheoryandPracticeof Sociocriticism PhilippeLejeuneOnAutobiography Thierry deDuve Pictorial Nominalism: On Marcel Duchamp's Passage f romPaiming10theReadymade LuizCoslaLimaControlof theImaginary FredericJamesonTheIdeologiesof Theory:Essays1971-1986,Volume2 FredericJamesonTheIdeologiesofTheory:Essays1971-1986.VollimeI EugeneVanceFromTopictoTale:Logicand Narrati vityin theMiddleAges LyolardTheDifferend Forotherbooksilltheseries.seep.177. TheInoperative Community Jean-LucNancy EditedbyPeterConnor TranslatedbyPeterConnor,LisaGarbus, MichaelHolland,andSimonaSawhney ForewordbyChristopherFynsk TheoryandHistoryofLiterature,Volume76 \ UniversityofMinnesotaPress.MinneapolisandOxford CopyrightC>1991bytheRegeTIlSof the:UniversityofMinnesota ChaptersI.2.and3 origi naLL yappearaiinLarommunaufl dtsoeu"rIr, copyright]986byChristian8ourgoisEditeur.Paris;chapter" as " L.aTIIOlJreneclats,"inAlia.copyrightCl1986byParis:chapter$ as"Deslieu)!divins,"in queDieu?Philosophie/ TMologie. HomrnQge0l'aW DanielCoppietersdeGibsOf/(1919-1981).copyrightC>198$byPublicationsdesFacullbUniversitairesSaint-L.ouis,Brussels:the presentEnglishtranslationof "Deslieuxdivins"firstappearedin Paragraph:AJournalo/the ModernCrilkalTheoryGroIlP,\'01. 7 (March1986). Allri,hlSresen'td.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced.stored inaretrievalsystem.orIransmined.inanyformorbyanymeans. eLCC1ronic.mtthanieal.photocopying.recording.or otherwise.wi t houtthe prior...-rittenperminionof thepublisher. PublishedbytheUniversi tyofMinllCsotaPress 2037Uni..-ersityAvenueSoutheast.Minneapolis,MNH414 PrintedinIncUni tedStates of Americaonacid-freepaper Nancy.Jean-L. uc. dtsccuvrh.Englishl Theinoperat ivecommuni t yI.lean-L. ucNancy. p.em.- (Theoryandhistoryof literature;v.76) Translationof :Lacommunautfdtsccuvrh. Incl udesindex. ISBN08166 1923 9.- ISBN 0-8166- 1924-7(pbk.) I.Community.2.l'oLiticalparticipat ion.I. Title. I I.Serle!. IiM131.NBlJ1990 J07-dc20 9().'''''" CI . ACIPcatalogr('CordforchisbookisuailablefromtheBritishLibrary. TheUniversi tyofMinnesota isanequal-opportunity educatorandemployer. Contents Foreword:ExperiencesofFinitudeChrisLOpherFYflskvii2 t 'If Prefacexxxvi I. TheInoperativeCommuni ty -'2.MythInterrupl ed43 3." LiteraryCommunism"71 4.$halleredLove82 5.OfDivinePlaces110 Notes151 Index171 Foreword ExperiencesofFinitude ChristopherFynsk AfullintroductiontoJean-LucNancy'sphilosophicalworkwouldrequire trealmentof thc practice of readingthathe haspursuedin carryingforward thetaskof deconstruclingthehi storyofmetaphysics.Nancyhasdevoted extensivestudytothcmajortextsofmodernphilosophy,fromDescanes throughNiet zsche. because he follows Heidegger inassuming that any erfor! tothinkthepresent(theadventofatimethatcannolongerbethought wit hanyleleologicalorfundamentalschema)presupposesalucidunder-standingofphilosophy'sclosure.Heideggerarguedthattraci ngthelimit formedby the end ofmetaphysics ent ai ls repeatingthemovementsby which phi losophyexhausteditspossibilities-this.inordertoreleasewhatphi-losophyhascloseduponinit sefforttosecureanideal orderofmeaning. Nancy(withothers:thecommunit ytowhichJacQuesDerridarefersinthe openingpagesof" ViolenceandMetaphysics" )'hasrecognizedthatthis taskofrepetitionisfarfromcompl ete,thatinprincipleitcannotbe completed,andthatitrequiresrepet itioninitsturn.Heideggermadeit clearthatwecannotsimpl yhavedonewithphilosophy:ourlanguage "emainsthelanguageofmetaphysics.Healsoshowedsomeofthepossi bili tiesthatli einthinkingtheclosureofmetaphysics(asNancyreminds us.abordermarksaninsideandanoutside).Butherestrictedandeven foreclosedthosepossibilitiesinhisturn,aswe seemost dramaticall yinhis polit icalstatements.ByrepeatingHeidegger'staskof deconstructingmeta-physicsin close readingsof some of themajor texts of thetradi tion.Nancy also deconstructsHcidcgger andworks towardanewthought of difference. vii _iiiuFOREWORD MuchofNancy'sworkhasthustakenthefor mofcommentary,and continuestodoso(asinthecaseof hi s essayontheHegelianButoverthepasttenyears,Nancyhasalsosoughttodepartfromthis mode andtopursue inamoreindependentfas hi onthenotion of difference towhichhi sworkhaspointed.Hehasauempt edtoabandonthecom. ment ator'sposition of relativesafety andto elaborate athoughtthatwould answertothefactthatmanyoftheconcernstowhichfundamentalphi. losophy was addressedcontinuetospeak toustodayintheformof imper. at ives(freedom,justice,communit y),eventhoughtheconceptualsystems fromwhichtheseideashavedrawnthei rmeaningarenolongerviable. Nancyhaspursuedaggressivelythenotionthattheendofphilosophyis notthe endof thought.Indeed,inhi s viewtheendof philosophy demands thought,andheiswi ll ingtoretainthenameofphilosophytodesignate theeffort10answer10theseobscureimperat ives. Nancyhasthusreturned10asctof themesIhalstillformthemainslays ofpoliticalandethicalthoughtbutthatarcrarel ytakenuptodayas qllesTi ons (andarcthus largel y abandonedtotraditionalphilosophical com. mentary:theendlessJ:eension. of philosophy'spastpositionsorpointsof view).Hehas donesofromthebasis of a,hOllghl ofhi story,aconception of the eventof philosophy's end(the collapseof allfoundational discourses andtheadventofmOdernit yorpostmodernity)andofthe"event ual " characterofhi storyit self.Proceedingfromanot ionofthefinitudeof Being-itsessenti aldifferencefromitself,orit shistoricity-Nancyhas soughttorethinkour experience of hi story,or whatI might callthe passions of historicall y defi nedexistence:amongthem,freedom,love,communit y, andreligion(thelastthreeformthepointsoffocusinthisvolume).He hasbegun10 elaborateinthis manner amostsevere, thoughalso liberating, thoughtoffi nitude. My aimherewillbetosket chthebasiclinesof thisthoughtandsome ofthequestionsitraises,wit hparticularreferencetotheessayscontained inthisvolume.I willneglectinthis mannermany of Nancy's contribut ions tophilosophicalresearch(workthatisfreq uentl yatthemarginsofphi losophy,atit sintersectionswithliterarytheory,psychoanalysis.andpolit. icaldiscourse),trustingthattheincreasingavailabilit yofthismaterialin Engli sh lessens the needforanintroductory overview.J Butbefore approach. ingwhatNancydescribesasthe"singularit y"ofBei ng-itssi ngul arity impl yingitsmultiplici ty,andthusadifferentialstructurethatformswhat Nancycall sthe"politicalspace,"andthesiteof cornmunit y-Iwouldlike topursuealiulefurtherthesingularcharacterofNancy'sownwork.For thegestureof thoughtthatani matestheworkuponwhichIamfocusing hereconstitut esitstruenovelt yandevenit sdecisiveimporlanceforcon temporary crit icalandphilosophicalthought. I' OREWQRDi...J Ihavealludedtothebasictraitsof thisgesture:itconsistsinreturning tothemesthatplay acruci alroleinalldiscoursesconcernedwithpolitics or thegroundsof social existencebutthathavebecomeabst ract - theprey ofideology-byvi rtueofthefactthatthephilosophicalpresuppositions defi ning their meani ng (Nancywillspeak of themetaphysicsof subjectivity, referringtherebytothephilosophicalunderpi nningsofhumani sm)have succumbedto thenihilismthatinhabi tsthem.Apolitical imperat ivewhose groundsarenecessarilyobscureneverthelessdictatesthatthemessuchas "freedom"and"communit y"berethought.Thesethemes stillspeaktous insomesense;evenifpoliticaldi scourseshaveprovenunabl etogivethem ameani ngthatholdsforasocialpracticedevotedto sociopoli ticalneeds, wefindoursel vesunabl etodowit houtthem,evenhaunt edbythemin somesense.Nancy'sgestureistoconfrontthedistressgeneratedbythe haunting abstraction of suchterms bypushing themtoward limits he defines withhi sunderstandingoftheclosureofmetaphysicsandofwhatthis closure reveals:thefinitudeof Being.He does this atan astoni shing speed, asthoughallof thetraditi onalthemeswerecrowdingintohisthoughland demandi ngreconsideration.Andhedoesituntiringl y-heexhauststhe termsuponwhichhefocusesandtheconcept ualstructuresinwhichthey arc embedded. Thereis no piety here,and nothing esoteric (however difficult thethoughtmi ghtbe):Nancy'sisahands-onapproachthatconstructs precariousconceptualformulasonlytoturntheminsideoutinanunre-lent ingefforttoexposethei rlimit soncemore.Heisalaborerofthe concept, carrying to excess whatHegeldescribed as the labor oj Ihe concept. Andthismeansthathedoesnotshyfromri sksofredundancyoreven outrightcontradicti on- heisai mingforthechallC:eexposureofalimit . Gracewil l comeinasuddenturnof thephraseatmomentsof inspiration oratmomentsof fatigue(theconcept'sfatigue,nothi s).Buthedoesnot pausetosearchforit;itcomesfrequentl y enough,andtheimperativeto whichheisansweringurgeshimon. Oneshouldneit herneglectnorgiveintothetcnsioncreatedbythis conceptual work(atension experiencedsharpl y by any translator of Nancy's work).ThereisnolanguageforwhatNancyistryi ng10thinkthatdoes notatsomepointinhibitthisthought.reinscribeinittheclassicalcon ceptualsystemsNancyistryi ngtoworkpast.Thetensionkeepsusfrom tooeasil yupontheformulaswithwhichNancyseekstodefi nehi s not ionofdifference.WhatNancyispointingtocanbeglimpsedonl yin themovementofhi stextandthewakeofhi sconceptuallabor(whichis alsowherewewillfindhi ssignature). Fromapoliticalperspecti ve.thegest ureof jorcingtermssuchas'free dom" and"community" - marking theirphilosophicallimit s andreworki ng theminrelationtoathoughtoffinitude-i nvoh'csmarkingthegapalld x0fOREWORD thebridgebetweenhi sthoughtofcommunityandanyexistentpoli tical philosophyorprogram,agapandabridgethatalsodefinetherelation betweenwhatNancycall sintheprefacetothisvolume" thepolit ical "(Ie politiqlle:thesitewherewhatitmeanstobeincommonisopentodefi-nit ion)and"politics"(/0politiqlle:the play of forcesandinterests engaged inaconflictovertherepresentationandgovernanceofsocialexistence).4 Hisgestureisthustoworkatermlike"community"insuchawaythat itwillcometomarkwhatHeideggerwouldcallthe differencebetweenthe anticandtheontologicalandtoobligeustothinkfromthebasisofthis difference.I willbeapproachingNancy'suse of theterm"communit y"in thepagesthatfollowbyfocus ingonseveralofhisdescriptionsofthe groundsofthesocialorpoliticalbond(astructureof"exposure"that Na ncyelaboratesfromthebasisofHeidegger'snotionoffinitetranscen-dence andhis notion of Mitsein).Butforthe purpose of these initial remarks onNancy'sphilosophicalpractice,letitsufficetosaythatcommunit y namesarelationthatcannotbethoughtasa subsistentgroundor common measurefora" being-in-common."Whileasingularbeingmaycometo its existenceasa subject onl y inthisrelation (anditiscrucial,inapolitical perspecti ve,tonotethatNancythusstartsfromtherelationandnotfrom thesolitary subject or individual) , this communitary " ground" or condition ofexi stenceisanunsublatabledifferentialrelationthat"is"onl yinand byitsmultiplesingularart iculations(thoughitisalwaysirreducibleto these)andthusdiffersconstantl y fromitself.It isnotsomethingthatmay beproducedandinstitUi edor whoseessencecouldbeexpressedinawork of anykind(including a polisor state) : it cannotbetheobjectorthetelos of apolitics. Thusanyoneseeking animmediatepoliticalapplicationof thisthought ofcommunit yrisksfrustration(andthetensiontowhichIhavealluded redoubles,forthetaskof pursuingathought of communit y inthefaceof anunacceptablepoliticalrealit y-whichincludesanongoi ng destructionof much of whatwehave knownascommunity- is notan unproblematic one). Moreover.thisfrustrationwillnotentirel y dissipateevenif onerecognizes thatNancy's engagementwiththepolit ical(understood,onceagai n,asthe si tewhereabeing-in-commonisatstake)proceedsfromanacutesenseof the contemporary sociopolitical context andis indissociable fromapolitical position-taking. 'Onedoesnothavetoreadfartorecognizethepolitical characterofNancy'sthought(evenwhenhedoesnotthemat izepolitical issues),anditisnotdiffi culttoseewhereNancymi ghtbesituatedinthe spect rumof politicalchoi ces.Butitisexceedingly difficulttodefine.for example.howonemi ghtmovefromhisdefinitionofanonorganie.dif-ferentialarticulationofsocialexistence(whichheillustratesviaMarxin chapter 3)toany currently existingpolitics.Foronceagain.there isapoint FOREWORD0xi atwhichthismovebecomesproperlyunthinkableinthetermsofany traditionalconceptionoftherelationbetweentheoryandpractice:one cannotworktoinstituteorreali zethisthoughtof communil y. Onecan,however,attempttocommunicatewhatNancycalls"com-munity"(lhoughwehavetodoherewithanentirelydifferentsenseof communicationfromtheoneIhatis calleduponintheoriesof consensus); onecanattempttofavorsuchcommunication.andonecanattemptto engageina critiqueof theideologiesthatdi ssimulalewhatNancycall sthe absenceof community(orthefactof theimpossibility ofcommunionor immanenceasitappearstous today,after theclosureof metaphysics).The impossibilityofimmediatelytranslatingthisthoughtintoapolit icalpro-gramdoesnotdi cl atepoliticalparalysis.Onthecontrary,theexperience ofthepolitical,asNancydefinesit,demandspoliticalresponse-both becauseitprovides a sharp sense of the abstractionof thereigningpolitical ideologies andbecause itentailsthe experience of something likeanimper-ative.IIrequi resatthesametimethatwerethi nktheveryconceptof pol iticalpractice,asNancybeginstodowithhi snot ionof writing(Iwill turnto this later asI take up the questionof language andthecommunity'S exigency).' Nancy's gesture of Ihoughtpoints to and already involves another practice ofwriting.Butwecannotanticipateanyrapidresolutionofthetensions towhichIhavereferred,forouraccesstoanotherthoughtof community a ndpoliticalpracticeisthroughthelanguageof thetraditionandrequires t hekindofworkNancyhasundertakeninattemptingtomarkthelimits of Ihe traditionalterminology(whi ch is certainl y nottosay thatthedecon-structionof thetraditionwillsufficeinapoliticalperspective:wecannot affordtoneglectquestionsofimmediatepoliticalurgency.andthework ofdeconstructionmustalsobeundertakeninrelationtothem).Nancyis attemptingtoexposewhatstillspeaksinatermlike"communit y"when weassumetheclosureof themetaphysicsof subjectivity-any communion ofthesubjectwithitself,any accomplishedself-presence-andwi thitthe closureof representation or signification(a signi fyingorder assuredby and forasubject).Andifhepersistssorelentlesslywiththisimpractical con-ceptuallabor,itisbecauseheistryingtoworkathoughtofdifference, orathoughtoffinitude ,int opoliticaltermsthatconti nuetospeaktous asimpe'rativesdespitetheirlossofphilosophicalmeaning.Theobscurit y ofthese- imperati vesdemandsthislabor.andthethoughtdemandsits commun jcation.1 TheExperienceofFreedom WhatisIhisthought '? OneofNancy'smostforcefularticulationsofit comesinhisessay onfreedom.inwhich heretracesthe fateof thi s concept xi i0FON.EWON.I) inHeidegger'sworkandtriestorepeatHeidegger'sefforttothinkthefact of existence. or its fact icily.as its freedom. He demonstrates thatthe concept of freedomgraduallyrecedesinHeidegger'sthinking,untilitisabandoned notlongaftertheconfrontat ionwithSchelling(1936)andreplacedwit ha notionof"thefree"(dosFreie).Itrecedes,wemightsay,frombeinga traitof existence(thetrailof existence:itsground,orratherAbgrund-theabyssalfoundationthatisitstranscendence,its"freedomtofound") toatrailofBeingthatinit s"freedom"givesarelat iontowhatisinand bya movementof withdrawal.Heideggerwillnever dissociateBeing's move-mentofadvent /withdrawal.concealment / unconcealment ,fromacerlain interventionbythehumanDasein;thisiswhyBeinghasahistoryandis nowhereotherthaninthehistoryofitsarticulations-thisisthefinitude ofBeing.Beingneedshumankind,Heideggerwillsay,'andinthelate essaysonlanguagehewillreiteratethatthespeakingoflanguage(that eventinwhichadeterminationof Beingopensinlanguage) can onl y occur insofarasitispro-vokedbyanactof humanspeaking.Butinthecourse ofhisthinking(feelingthegripofthemetaphysicsofsubj ectivit y-par-ticularly after thevolumarism of his ownpolit icalengagemems).Heidegger shiftsthefocusfromthefreedomthatengagesthehumanDasei ninthe "accompli shmentofBeing"tothefreedom(theOpcn,the"free"regIon) towhichthehumanDascinaccedesinansweringtotheeventofBeing's advent. This shiftof focusisnotwithoutits effect s.Questions are displacec'1 or evenclosed(includingthosethatHeideggerfi ndsmosttroubling:those bearingmostimmediatelyonpolitics);others are broughtmore clearly int.o view(i tbecomesimpossibletomistakeHeidegger 'sthoughtforaneX:ls-tentialism).Buttheshift ,or theKehre,asitis commonlyreferredto,dc.>Cs notalterHeidegger'sbasicnotionofthefinitudeofBeingandtherefore docsnotalterHeidegger'sinitialunderstandingthatBeingmustbeIhOlight initsdiffere"cefromitself,andthusinitsexistence,understoodasan alwayssingulararticulationof itswithdrawal.Nancy'sgestureconsiMSin carryingthi sthoughtof thefi nitudeof Being-its eventual,singularchar-acter-backintothequestionsopenedintheexistentialanal yticofBeing und Time.He foldsthelater Hcidegger {aHcidegger thatDerrida hashelped ustorethinkwithhi s elaborationof theconcepts of (/ifferanceand."writ-ing")backintotheearlier,andstart sfromthedirect ion of theeX'pcrience of thehumanDasein- recognizing thatthoughtbeginsfromno otherpoint ofdeparture.Thushetriestothinktheeventwhereinadeterminationof whatitmeanstobecomesaboutandbeingscomeintotheirpresence (Ereigllis,Bei ng'sadvent).inrelationtothemO"ementinwhichexistence isdeliveredtoitselfinitsfreedomandcomestoknowitselfinandasan exposuretoanalteritythatitdrawsoutandcommunicate.'.Nancyis perfcctlyfaithfultoHeidegger'sthought - to atleastone,almostunbroken I'OREWORO0\.ofit- inmovingthefocusbacktothelatterexperienceof Hier..h'd't"he Butbypushingthenotionof thesingularity0Belng.mtIS.IrecIon, .ableto counter some of the most conservative tendenCIes of thIS::spiety.thewayitgatherstoit selfinitstoorappropriationofBeingoveritsco-originarydlsappropnallon. anddl.s-semination.By emphasizing thesi ngularnature of thewhe.remD?Sem openstoBeing.NancybringsforwardBeing'snecessarilydlffer-ntialcharacter:if thearticulation of Being is alwayssi ngular,Bemg cannot One,anditcannotbethoughtsimply asagatheri.ng orcoll.ecti ng.And ifthattowhichDaseinopensisalwaysalreadyartlculaled(Itcouldn?t giveitself or"communicate"itself otherwise-it other In itsarticulations)thenBeingmustbethoughtasdIfferentialor Onceagain,ifwereadcarefully-ifwereadpast. arotMUNITY0JI .ameansof communicati onbutcommunicationit self,anexposure IS .riO the way the Inui t Eskimos si ng by making their own cries resonate (SImIa. I openmouthofapartner).ThespeakingmouthdoesnotIransmll, intIe..hIk ,otinform.doesnOIeffectanybond;ItIs-perhaps,totl g 1laen docS I.f"I '.Ih "/,'milaswiththeki ss-thebeatlllg0aslIlgu arsIt eaga msl0er .p"""" "I,rsites'" IspeakandfromthenonIam- I hebemgmmeIS-smgu , outsidcmyselfandinmyself.':(O.c... NodoubttheHegeliandeslTeforrecogmtlOnISalreadyoperatI vehere. Nevertheless,before recognition,there isknowi ng:knowi ng wi thoutknowl-_"'candwithout"consciousness ,"thatIamfir stofal1exposedtothe . h andexposedtotheexposureoftheot her.EgoSlimexposllllS:on ot e,.bh" d I serinspecl iononemi ghtdiscernhereaparadox.namelythateIII ,0"hhb'tot Cartesianevidence-t hatevidencesocertallltattesuJect.cannon haveitandthatitneednotbeproven inany way-there musthenotsome nocturnalbedazzlemenloftheego,notsomeexistential ofa self-affection,butsolel ycommunit y-theaboutwhIchD.es-cartes seems toknow solillie. or nothing atall.In thIS respectthe Ca.rtesmn subjectwouldformIheinversefigureof Iheexperi enceof communll y and of singularity.ThcCartesian subjectknowshimself tobeexposed.a.ndhe knowshimselfbecauseheisexposed(doesnotDescart espresenthimself ashisown Thisiswhycommunity cannotarisefromthedomainofwork.One .does notproduce it ,one experiences oroneisconstitutedbyit theexpenence offinitude.Community understoodasaworkorthroughItS workswould presupposethatthe commonbeing, assuch.beobjectifiable and.producib.le (insites,persons.buildings.discourses ,insti tUli ons.symbols:IIIshort:III subjects).Productsderivedfrom operat ions of this kind,however grandiose theymi ghtseektobeandsometimesmanagetobe,havenomorecom-munitarianexistencethantheplasterbustsofMariannc. Communit y necessarily takes place in whatBlanchot has call ed " unwork-ing,"referringtothatwhich,beforeorbeyondthework ,from thework.andwhich.nolongerhavingtodoeitherwithproductionor with compl cti on, encounters int errupt ion,fragmentation,suspension.muni tyismadeofthcint errupt ionofsingularities.orofthesuspenSion thatsingularbei ngsare.Communit yisnottheworkofsi ngularbeings, norcanitclaimthemasit sworks,justascommunicationisnOIawork Orevc nanoperationofsingularbeings.forcommunityissimplytheir being-theirbeing suspendedupon its limit.Communicationis the unwork-ingofworkIhatissocial.economic,technical,andinsti lUlional.l6 J20THEINOPERATIVECO:'>tMUNITY Theunworkingofcommunit ytakesplacearoundwhatBataillefora verylongtimecall edthesacred.Yethecamearoundtosaying,"WhatI earli ercalledthe sacred,anamethatisperhapspurelypedantic ... isdamentall ynothingotherthantheunl eashingof passions"(O.C.7:371). Ifthis" unl eashingofpassions"isonlypartiallyrepresentedbythe violentandunbridledmovementof afree subjecti vit y disposedtowardthe sovereigndestructionof allthingsastowarditsconsumpti oninNOTHtNG, andeventhoughasacharacterizationofthesacreditfail stoilluminate the communit y through whichpassionisunleashed,itnevert helessremains the directionalwaysprivi legedbyBatai l1 e.Itfurni shes,asErOfismputsit, the"awfulsign"bywhichourimpossibletruthmi ghtberecognized,at leastfromafar.Butitisnotatallsurethatthisprivilegeisnotitself submitted to an ultimate reserve (or sublation) of the Subject : the sovereignly subjective annihilat ion of subjecti vit y itself.A kind of incandescentnihilism carriesthesubjecttoitspoi ntoffusion.Thisst illrecall sHegel,andyet itisnolongerHegel.ItisnolongertheState,butitissti llaworkof death . Bataille seesitsfasci nating aspectinSade,whoproposed communit y astherepublicof crime.But the republicof cri me must alsobethe republic of thesuicide of cri minals,anddowntothelast amongthem- the sacriflCe ofthesacri ficersunleashedinpassion.Thus,eventhoughBataillevery often affirmedacommunit y foundedin sacredseparati on,separat ion resentingtheruptureofpassion,hewasnonethelessled(becausehefelt alltoost rongly theatonceliberatingandoverwhelming exigencyof munication)torecogni zeincommunit y,tothecontrary.Sade'slimit:the phrase" Ispeak,andfromthenonI am ... outsidemyself andinmyself" is the phrase that decides irrevocably and fundamentall y Bat aille's refutation of Sade's"crudeerror,"whichhestatesasfollows:"Theworldisnot,as Sadeultimatel yrepresentedit ,composedofhimselfandthings"(OC. 8,297), Hence.iftheinoperativecommunityistobefou ndinthevicinit yof the" sacred,"itisonlyinasmuchasthe" unl eashingofpassions"isnoC thefreedoing of asubjecti vityandfreedomisnotself sufficiency.(Upto acertai npoi nt ,Bataillefail edtorecognizetowhatextentaveryclassical andverysubjecti veconceptoffreedomweighedonhi sthought.)Butthe " unleashingofpassions"isoftheorderofwhatBataillehimselfoften designatedas"contagion,"anot hernamefor"communication."Whatis communicated,whatiscontagi ous,andwhat ,inthismanner- andonly inthismanner-is" unl eashed,"isthepassionof singularit y assuch.The singularbeing,becauseitissingul ar,isinthepassion- thepassivit y,the suffering,andtheexcess-ofsharingitssingul arity.Thepresenceofthe otherdoesnotconstituteaboundarythatwouldlimi ttheunl eashingof " my"passions:onthe contrary.onl y expositiontothe otherunleashesmy THEt NQl'ERATIVECO:,>tMUNITY0jj si ons.Whereastheindi vi dualcanknowanot herindi vidual,juxtaposed pashim bothasidenticaltohi m andasathing-as theidentit y of athing-10'h '/ ' "( hsingularbeingdoesnotknow,bUIratherexpertences]s/"eson t " Bei ngisnevermealone,itisalwaysme and those/ikeme" 8:297) ..Thisisitspassion .. isthepassionof being. Thelikebemg bears therevelallon of sharmg:he or she does notresemble llleas aportraitresembles anori ginal.It-:vasthi s typeof that constitutedtheinit ialgivenoftheclass]candtortuousproblematic(or impasse)ofthe" recognitionoftheother"(supposedl yopposedtothe "knowledge of thething").And onehas toask whet her, above andbeyond theHusserlianalterego,onemi ghtnotstillpickuptracesofthisprob-lematicandthisimpasseinFreud,Heidegger,andBataille,restraining thought , asitwere.atthethreshhold of communi ty,inacertainspecul arity of therecognit ionoftheot herthroughdeath.However,itisinthedeath oftheolher,asIhavesaid,thatcommunit yenjoinsmetoitsownmost register.butthisdoesnotoccurthroughthemediationofspecul arrec-ognition.ForIdonotrecognizemyself inthedeathof theot her-whose li mitnonethelessexposesmeirreversibly. Hcideggerleadsusfarthesthere: " The dyingof Othersisnotsomet hing thatweexperience inanaut hent icsense;atmostweare alwaysj ust" there alongside." ... Byits very essence,deathis inevery case Here,the speculararrangement(ofrecognitionofthesel fintheot her,whichpre-supposestherecogniti onoftheotherinoneself,and,consequentl y,the agencyof thesubject)is- ifImaysayso-turnedinsideoutlikeaglove: Irecogni zethatinthedeathoftheotherthereisnothingrecognizable. Andthisishowsharing-andfinitude- canbeinscri bed:"Theending impliedindeathdoesnotsignify aDasein'sBeingat-an.end,butaBeing to .....ard. the.endofthi sent ity."21 Thesimilitudeofthelikebeingismade intheencounterof"beingstowardtheend"thatthisend,theirend,in each case" mine"(or" yours"), assimilates and separates inthe same limit, atwhichoronwhichtheycompear. Alikebeingresemblesmein thatImyself "resemble"him:we"resem-ble"together,ifyouwill .Thatistosay,thereisnoori gi nalororiginof identity.Whatholds theplace of an "origin"is thesharing of singul arities . Thismeansthatthis"origin"-theoriginof community ortheoriginary Community-isnot hingotherthanthelimit:theoriginisthetraci ngof thebordersuponwhi choralongwhichsi ngularbeingsareexposed.We arealikebecauseeachoneofusisexposedtotheoutsidethat.....eare for Ourselves.Thelikeisnotthesame(Iesemblablen'estpasIepared).Ido notrediscovermyself,nordoIrecognizemyself intheot her:I experience theOt her'salterit y.orIexperiencealterityintheothertoget herwiththe al teration that"in me" sets my singularit y outside me andinfinitely delimits 34 0TilEI NOPERATI VECo.\tMUNITY i1.Communityisthatsingularontologicalorderinwhichtheotherand thesamearcalikc(SOIllIesembloble):thatistosay,inthesharingof idcntity. Thepassionthatisunlcashcdisnothi ngotherthanthepassionof and forcommunity.andthispassionemergesasthedesubjcctivizationof the passionfordeath-thatis.asitsreversal:foritdoesnotseek jOllissonce beingneithertheHegeliandcsireforrecognition,northecalculatedoper: ationofmastery. liIIIdoesnotseektheself-appropriationofsubjective immanence.Rather.itiswhatisdesignatedbythedoubletoftheWOrd "jollissollce,"namel yjoyUoie).Thepracticeof "joybeforedeath"thai Batailletriedtodescribeisaravishingof thesingularbei ngthatdoesnOi crossoverinto death(itis notthc joy of rcsurrection,whichis the subject's mostinwardmediation:itisnotatriumph;itisasplcndor- thisisthe etymologicalmeaningofthcword"joy"-thoughitisanocturnal splendor),butratherattains,tothepointof touchingbutwithoutappro_ priatingittoitself,theextrcmepointofit ssingularit y,theendofits fin itude;thatistosaytheconfinesuponwhichcompearancewithand beforetheotheroccurs,withoutrespite.Joyispossiblc.ithasmeaning andexistence,onlythroughcommunityandasit scommunication. Whatiscurrentl yinthcair- ifoneisspeakingof collecti ve cxistence-isthepoorestthingonecanimagi ne,andno rcpresentationcanbemoredisconccrti ngthanonethatprescnts deathasthefundamentalobjcctof thecommllno/activityof men, deathandnotfoodorthcproductionof themeansof production .... Whatistragicallyreligiousintheexistenceof a community,informalembracewithdcath,hasbecomethething themOStalientoman.Noonethinksanylongerthattherealit yof acommonlife- whichistosay,humanexistence-dependsonthe sharingofnoclUrnalterrorsandthckindof ecstaticspasmsthat arespreadbydeath .... THEEMOTIONALELEMENTwmeltGIVESANOBSESSIVEVALUETO COMMUNALEXISTENCEISDEATH .lspokenof acommunityase:risting:Niet;,schebroughthis affirmationstothis,butremaineda/one . ... Thedesireto communicateisborninme 0111of a feelingof communitybinding me 10Nietzsche.andnotOlltof anisolatedoriginality.(O. C.5:39) Wecanonl y gofar ther. Note:Afirs tversionof"La communaulCdcsoeuvrce"waspublishedin thespring of 1983in issuenumber 4 of Alea.whicheditorJean-Christophe l1aillyhaddevotedtoIhethemeofcommunit y.Precedingmytextwas 420THEI NOPERATI VEBai ll y'sminimalleXI,slatingIhetilleforIheissue:" thecommunit y,the number."Alreadyatext,alreadyanaCIof writing,increasinginnumber summoningwriting.' AttheendofIhesameyearMauriceBlanchot 'sLacommllnauteina_ appeared.Thefirstpanofthisbookengaged" Lacommunaute desoeuvree,"inorder10"takeupareflectionneverinfactinlerrupled concerning the communisl exigency"and"Ihe flaw inlanguage suchwords ascommunismorcommunityseem 10comain,if wesenseIhalthey carry somethingcomplelelyotherthanwhatcouldbecommontothosewho wouldbcJongtoawhole,toagroup." Not hing ismorecommontothemembersof acommunit y,inprinciple, thanamyth,oragroupofmyths.Myt handcommuni tyaredefinedby eachother,alleastinpart- butperhapsintotality-andthismOli vatesa reflectiononcommunityaccordi ng10mYlh. Alittlelater,fromBerlin,WernerHamacheraskedmetocomribul eto aseriesof worksdevotedtoIhe question ofmyth.This resulledinthefirst versionof "MythInt errupt ed."It soonbecameevidenlthatIhis was simply anOlherwayofreturningtoBataille's"communil arian"exigency,andof fun herprolongingBlanchot's" unimerrupledrefl ection." Thisrefl cclion cannotbeimerrupted-indeed,inthisitisunlikemyth. Reflcclionistheresistanceandtheinsistenceofcommunit y.Manyot her namesshouldbeadded10thosejustment ioned.Theirpresencemustbe inferred,orratherwhathasbeenwrittenundertheirnames,imercalated here-a communit yIInovowoblebecause100numerousbutalsobecauseit doesnOIevenknowitself,anddocsnOIneed10knowilSelf- intercalated, allernal ing, sharedtexts,likealllexlS, offering whatbelongstono oneand relUrns 10everyone:thecommunil y of wri ti ng,thewriling of communilY. Including-one day J willtry to an iculate Ihis,I must-I hose who neither writ e nor read andthose whohavenothingin common.For inrealit y,Ihert isnosuchperson. TranslatedbyPeterConnor Chapter2 MythInterrupted Weknowthescene:thereisagathering,andsomeoneistellingastory. Wedo notyetknow whether thesepeople gathered together form an assem-bly,iftheyarcahordeoratribe.Butwecallthembrothersandsisters becauseIheyaregat heredlogelherandbecausetheyareli slening10the samestory. Wedonotyetknowwhelhertheonespeakingisfromamongthemor ifhe isan outsider.Wesay thatheisone of them,butdifferentfromthem becausehehasthegift,orsi mplytheri ght-orelseilishisdut y-tOtell Ihestory. TheywerenotassembledlikethisbeforeIhestory;therecitationhas gatheredthemlogether.Before,theyweredispersed(atleastthisiswhat thestorytellsusalti mes),shouldertoshoulder,workingwithandcon-fronti ngoneanot herwithoutrecognizingoneanother.Butoneday,one of themstoodstill,orperhapsheturnedup,asthoughreturni ngfroma longabsenceoramysteriousexile.Hestoppedataparticularplace,10 thesideofbutinviewofIheothers,onahillockorbyatreethathad been struckby lightning,andhe startedthenarrativethatbroughttogelher theothers. Herecount s tothem theirhi story,or hi s own.astory Ihattheyallknow, butth"thealonehasthegift.theright ,orthedut y totell.[tisthestory of theirorigin,ofwhereIheycomefrom,orofhowtheycomefromthe Originitself- them,or thei rmates.ortheirnames.or Iheauthorityfigure amongthem.Andsoalthesametime;1is alsothestoryofIhebeginning 440MYTHt NTERRUPTED of world.ofthebeginningoftheirassemblingtogether,orof b.egmnmgof thenarrativeitself (andthenarrativeal sorecount s,onocca. slon, . whotaughtthestory tothetell er,andhowhecametohavethegift thenght,orthedutytotellit). Hespeaks,herecites,sometimeshesings,orhemimes.Heishisown hero,. andthey, turns,aretheheroesof thetaleandtheoneswhohave thenghttohear Itandthedutytolearnit.Inthespeechof thenarrator: their fort.hefirsttimeservesnootherpurposethanthatoi presen!mg thenarrati veand of keepingitgoi ng.It is no longer thelanguage ofexchanges,butoftheirreunion-thesacredlanguageof afoun. dationandanoat h.Thetellersharesitwiththemandamongthem. Itisanancient .immemorialscene,anditdoesnottakeplacejustonce butrepeatsitselfindefinitely,withregularit y,ateverygatheri ngofhordes,w.ho cometolearnof theirtribal origins,oftheiroriginsinbroth_ . morincities-gathered aroundfiresburning everywhere Inthemistsof lime.Andwedonotyetknowiftheriresarelittowarm. thepeople,tokeepawaywi ldbeasts,tocookfood,or tolightuptheface of thenarratorsothathecanbeseenashespeaks.sings,ormimesthe story(perhapswearingamask),orelsetoburnasacrifice(perhapswith his ownfl esh)inhonorof theancestors,gods,beasts,or menandwomen celebratedinthestory. Thestoryoftenseemsconfused;itisnotalwayscoherent;itspeaksof powersandnumerousmetamorphoses;itisalso cruel,savage,and pllliess.butattimesitalsoprovokeslaughter.Itnamesthingsunknown. beingsneverseen,Butthosewhohavegatheredtogetherunderstandev-erything,inlisteningtheyunderstandthemselvesandtheworld,andthey understandwhyitwasnecessaryforthemtocometoget her.andwhyil wasnecessarythatthisberecountedtothem. Weknowthis scenewell.Morethan one storyteller has toldittous. 'havi ng gatheredustogetherinlearnedfraternitiesintentonknowingwhatour origi nswere. Our societies,theyhavetoldus,deri vefromthese assemblies themselves.and ourbeliefs. ourknowledge,our di scourses,andour poems derivefromthesenarrat ives. Theyhavecall edthesenarrati vesmyths.The scenethatweknowsowell isthesceneofmyth,thesceneofitsinvention,ofit srecitalandits transmission. ItisnotJUStanyscene:itisperhapstheessent ialsceneofallscenes, ofallscenographyorallstagi ng;itisperhapsthestageuponwhichwe MYTHt NTERRUPTED04S representtoorwhereuponwe. all .our , )rescntations,If myth,aslevI-StrausswouldhaveII ,IS prlmanl y defined (( I thatwit hwhichorinwhichtimeturnsintospace.!Withmyth,the oftimetakesshape,itsceaselesspassingisfixedinanexemplary P- dI-placeof shOWinganreveamg. Andsowealsoknowthatthissceneisit selfmythic. 1\lIdmuchmoreevidentlyso,itseems.whenitisthesceneof thevery birthofmyth ,forthisbi rthisidenticalwi thnot hinglessthantheorigin of human consciousness and speech-Freud himself,whom one might single oulasthelastinventor,orratherthelastdramatistof thisscene,declares ittobemythic.)Butthesceneisequallymyt hicwhenitissimplythe apparcntl y less speculati ve,more positi vescene of the transmission of myth. orwhenitiswhatoncmightcalltheethnologico-metaphysicalsceneofa humanitystructuredinrelationtoilSmyths:forwhatisinquestionis always ,defin itively.theori gi nalorprincipialfunctionofmyth.Myt his of andfromthe origin.itrelat esbackto amythicfoundation .andthrough thisrelationitfoundsitself(aconsciousness,apeople,anarrative). Itisthisfoundationthatweknowtobemythic.Wenowknowthatnot onlyisany" reconstitution"oftheinitialsurgingfonhofmyt hicpower itself" amyth,"butalsothatmythologyisourinvention.andthatmyth assuchisan" unl ocatablegenre.""Weknow-atleastuptoacertain poi nt-whatthecontentsofthemyt hsare.butwhatwedonotknowis whatthefollowingmightmean:thatIheyaremyths.Orrather.weknow thatalthoughwedidnotinventthestori es(hereagain,uptoacertain point).wedidontheotherhandinventthefunctionofthemyt hsthat these stories recount.Humanit y represented on the stage of myt h.humanit y being bornto itself inproducing myth-a trul y mything humanit y becoming trulyhumaninthis mytllation:thisforms ascene justasfantas tical as any primalscene.Allmythsareprimalscenes,allprimalscenesaremyths(it is stillFreudplayi ngtheroleof invent or here).Andwealsoknowthatthe ideaofa"newmythology," theideaofmovingontoanew,poetico-religiousfoundation.iscontemporaneous withtheinventionor themodern reinventionof mythologyintheromant icepoch.Romanticismitself could bedefinedastheinventionofthesceneofthefoundingmyt h,asthe awarenessof thelossofthepowerof thismyth.andasthe desi reorthewi lltoregai nthisli vingpoweroftheoriginand.atthesame time.theorigi nofthispower.ForNietzsche.whoisalleastinpartheir tothi sromanticdesi refora" newmyt hology,"thefreel ycreativepower helikestocredittotheGreeksmorethantoanyoneelsestemsfromthe "myt hicfeelingoflyingfrcely": s thedesireformyt hisexpresslydirected 460MYTHI NTERRUPTED towardthemythic(fictive)natureof (creative)myth- romamicism,or the willto(the)powerof myth. Thisformulationinfactdefines,beyondromanti cismandevenbeyOIlCl romanticisminitsNietzscheanform,awholemodernity:thewhole of that very broadmoderni tyembracing,inast range,grimacing alliance,boththe poctico-elhnologicalnostalgiaforaninitial mything humanit y andthe wish toregeneratetheoldEuropeanhumanit ybyresurrectingitsmostancient myths,includingtherelentl essstagingofthesemyt hs:Iamreferring,of course,toNazimyth.6 Weknowallthis:itisaknowledgethattakesourbreathaway,leavin. usspeechl ess,aswealwaysarewhenfacedwithhumanit y atsuchapoim ofextremity.Weshallneverreturntothemythichumanityof theprimal scene,nomorethanweshalleverrecoverwhatwassignifiedbytheword "humanity"beforethefi reof theAryanmyth.Weknow,moreover,that thesetwoextremitiesareboundupwithoneanother,thattheinvention01 mYlhisboundupwiththeuseof ilSpower.Thisdoesnotmeanthatfrom thenineteenthcentury onward thinkers of mythareresponsible forNaz.ism, butitmeansthatthethinkingofmyth,ofmythicscenography,belongs withthestagi ngandsellingtowork(miseenoeuvre)ofa"Volk"andor a"Reich,"inthesensethatNaz.ismgavetotheseterms.Myth,infact,is always"popular"and"mill enary"-atleastaccordingtoourversion, accordingtotheversionthatourmythicthoughtgivesof thethingcalled "myth"(foritmaybethatforot hers,for"primitives,"forexample,this samethingisquitearistocraticandephemeral). Inthissense,wenolongerhaveanythingtodowithmyth .Iwouldbe temptedtosaywenolongerevenhavetherighttospeakaboutit,tobe intereSledinit.ComprisedwithinIheveryideaof mythiswhatonemight callthe entirehallucination,ortheentireimposture,of theself-conscious-nessof amodernworldthathasexhausteditselfinthefabu lousrepresen-tationof itsownpower.Concentratedwithintheideaof myt hisperhaps the ent irepretensiononthepartof theWesttoappropriateilSownorigin, ortotakeawayitssecret,sothaiitcanatlastidentifyitself,absolutely, arounditsownpronouncementanditsownbirth.Theideaof mythalone perhapspresentstheveryIdeaof theWest,withitsperpetualrepresentation of thecompulsiontorcturntoit s own sourcesinorder tore-engender itself fromthcmasthevery destinyofhumanity.Inthissense,Irepeat,weno longerhaveanythingtodowithmyth. Unlessthi s is,as oftenhappens,the surestwaytoletthatwhichwewanted tobedone withproliferat e andbecome evcnmore threat ening.Itisperhaps notenoughtoknowthatmyt hismythic.ThisknowledgeisperhapstOO MYTHtNTERRUI'TEt)047 1 'ndisperhapseven- thiswillhavc(0beverified-strict ly speaking scan, '.... I .,d,'contained10myth .PerhapsthiSlogiCofmythsullneedstobe 3rt:.'f del1lonstratedinordertounderstandhowncanleadtothat0 ' ll'Sknowledgeofit selfandinordertotrytoconceivewhatwemight m)t..' hh 'IIh;!\'CtodonOiwllhmYlh,butratherwnhtheend10whlcmyt .','.cxorablyseemstolead.Forwhet heronelamentsthatmythiCpowerIS l:h3USICdorthatthewilltothispowerendsincrimesagainsthumani ty, leadsustoaworldinwhichmYlhicresourcesareprofoundly Tothinkourworldintermsofthis" lack"mi ghtwellbean indispensabletask. Ilamille namedIhis stat e,towhichweare doomed,the absence of myth. ForreasonsthatI shallexplainlater,I willsubstitutcforthistheexpression the interruptionof myth.Itisnonethelesstruethat" the absenceof myth" (the"interruption"ofwhi chwilldesignateratheritsprovenanceandit s modality)defines whatitiswe havearrivedai,andwhatweare confronted with.Butwhatisatstakeinthis confrontationisnotsimply analternative betweentheabsenceof mythandilSpresence.If wesupposethat" myth" designates,beyondthemythsthemselves,evenbeyondmyth,something thatcannotsimpl y disappear,thestakeswouldthenconsistinmyth'spas-sagetoalimitandontoalimitwheremythitselfwouldbenOisomuch supprcssedas suspended or interrupted. This hypothesis perhaps says noth-ingmorethanwhatBataillehadinmindwhenheproposedconsidering the absence of mythitself as amyth.Before examining this statementmore closely,onemightsay atleast that itdefines, on aformal level,an extremity, anint erruptedmyt h,oramythintheprocessof beinginterrupted. Wemusttrytoproceedtotheoutcrmostboundsof thisextremity;hence-forth,wemusttrytopercei vethisinterruptionofmyth.Oncewehave touchedtheblindingspot-BIIIIlindBoden,NuehtIIl1dNebel-ofmyth seltowork(misenoelll're),allthatremainsis\0move on10theinterrup-tionof myt h.Thisisnotthesamethingaswhathasbeencalled"demy-thologizing,"anactivitythatdistingui shesbetween"myth"and"fait h" andthatdepends,moreover,onIhepossibi lityof positingsomethinglike "faith,"whileleavinguntouchedtheessenceofmythitself. 'Thenotion ofinterruptionproceedsquitedifferent ly. Butbefore getti ngtothisnotion,andin ordertogettoit,wemustfirst fllapouttheterrainthatleadstotheextremit yatwhichitisinterruptcd . Whatneedstobeasked,then,isnotwhatmythis(andwhoknowsthe answerto this question?Mythologists di scussitendlessly),- butratherwhat isinvolvedinwhatwehu\'ebeencall ing"myth"andinwhatwehave invested.withorwithoutthesupportofpositi ve,hi storical.philological, 480MYTHI NTERRUPTED orclhnologicalmyt hologies.inwhatmustbecalled.onceagai n.a of myth.inwhateversensewetaketheword.(Moreover.theformation anabyssalmyth- mythofmyth.mythofitsabsence.andsoon-is doubtincvitable andinhcrentinmythitself inthatmyth.aswehave toth!nkof it .perhapssaysnothing.butsaysthatitsaysthis:myt h thatII.andsaysthatthisiswhatitsays.andinthisway0'""';,;, anddlst nbut cstheworldof humanit ywithitsspetth.) .We mightbegi n. with whatmyt h endedup becoming. After bei ng ''';;"."' simultaneously of liSmystery and its absurdity.of its magic and;" ,...,e,,,: bymca nsofaformidablestructuralsynthesis-whichcannotbei havc"emptiedmyt h of itsmcaning"unl essweaddstraightawaythat of meani ng"surel ybelongstomythitself-thetotalit yof myt hiCsyStemofhumanitytheninstantl yregained,throughakind reinstitutionintheformof asystematic,organizat ional. bmatlve,andarticulativetotalit y,apositi onorafunct ionthatone rightfull ycall"ofmythicstatus."Nodoubtthelangaugeofthi s ofmythsisofanot herorder(asisthelanguageofeachasamythis"t hetotalit yofits butitisst illa language;theelementof aninauguralcommunicationinwhich andsharingingcneralarcfoundedorinscribed.1O Itmaybethatwehavenotyetgraspedthefullextentofthe towhichthisst ructuralmythofmythhasbroughtus:inthe ambiguityofthisappellationlurksatleastthesuggest ionofan stagewheremythtouchesitslimitandcandoawaywithitself.Butif havenotgraspedthisitisbecausetheeventhasremainedinsomeway hiddenwit hinitself,disguisedbythe"mythicstatus"thatthestructur'll mythpersistedingivi ngtomyth(orelsetostructure). Whatis"mythicstatus?"WhatprivilegeshasatraditionofthinkiRl aboutmythattached10myth-privilegesthatthestructuralanalysesof mythreintroduced,int actorprenynea rlyso? Mythisaboveallfutl.originalspeech,attimesrevealing,attimes foundingtheinti matebeing of acommunit y.TheGreekmuthos-Homer's mmhos,thatis,speech,spoken expression-becomes"myt h"when ittakes awh.oleof valuesthat amplify.fill , and ennoble this speech, givinS IIthedimenSIonsofanarrativeof ori ginsandanexplanationof desti nies (inthepost-Homeric,andthenmodern,definitionof" myth,"itmatters littlewhet heronebelievesinthemythornot ,whetheroneviewsitdi s-trusti ngly or not). This speech is nota discoursethat would come in response totheinqui sitivemind:itcomesinresponsetoawait ingratherthantoa question,andtoawait ingonthepanoftheworlditsel f.Inmyththe worldmakesit sel fknown,anditmakcsitselfknownthroughdeclaration orthroughacompleteanddedsiverevelation. MYTHI NTERRUPTED049 ThegrealnessoftheGreeks-accordingtothemodernageofmythol-,,_ istohaveli vedinintimacywit hsuchspeechandtohavefounded Og ..logosinit theyaretheonesforwhom,ml/hosandlogosare"the theIr' .... e " 11 This samenessIStherevelat ion,thehatchlll g orblossomlllg of the of thething,of being,of maninspeech.Suchspeechpresupposes \\Oll rapieri!thMn."allthingsfilledwithgods,"asThalesissupposed .to {"vesaid.Itpresupposesanunint erruptedworldof presencesor anullln-worldoftruths.orelse.forthisisalreadysayingtoomuch,it "h"."od"b resupposesneither"presence"nor " trutnorattimesevengs,ut awayofbindingtheworldandattachingoneselftoit,areligio whoseutteranceswouldbe"greatspeech"(grandparler). 12Theenunciationof thismyt hic"greatspeech"- the"anonymousgreat voice"-belongsin turnto aspacein which"exchange,the symbolicfunc-tion... playthepartof asecondnature."1)Theremaybenobetterway of definingmythinbrief thanbysaying thatit constitut esthe second nature 0/ a grealspeech.AsSchellingputit ,mythis" rouregoricar'(borrowing thewordfromColeridge)andnot"all egori cal ":thatis,itsaysnot hing othcrthanitself andis producedinconsciOUSnessby the same processthat , innature,producestheforcesthatmythrepresent S.Thus,itdocsnotneed tobc interpreted. since itexplains itself: "die sich selbst erkliirende My thol-ogie, " "themythologythatexplainsorinterpretsitself.Mythisnature communicating itsel ftoman,bothimmediately-becauseitcommunicates itself- andinamediatedway-becauseitcommunicates(itspeaks).Itis, insum,theoppositeof adialectic,orratheritscompletion;itisbeyond thcdialecticelement .Dialect ics ,ingeneral,isaprocessthatari sesfrom Sf" mcgiven.Thesamecouldbesaidofitstwin,dialogics.Andthegiven isalwaysinsomewaythelogosoralogos(alogic,alanguage,anykind ofstructure).Butmyth,beingimmediateandmediated.isitselftheren-ditionofthelogosthatitmediates,itistheemergenceof itsownorgan-ization.Onemighteven say- thereby doing j ustice tothe structual analysis ofmyth-thatfromit sbirth(whetheronelocatesthisbirthinPlato,in Vico,inSchlegel, or elsewhere)myth has been the name forlogos structuring i,self,or,andthis comes down tothesamething,thenameforthecosmos s'ructllringitself inlogos. Evenbeforeent eri ngintonarrat ive,mythismadeupof anemergence. itisinaugural." Itis,"wroteMauriceLeenhardt .hthespetx: h,thefi gure. thcactthatci rcumscribestheeventattheheartofman.emotiveli kean infant.beforeitisafixednarrative.""Thusit sinit ialact(butmythis alwaysinit ial,alwaysabouttheinitial)istorepresentorrathertopresent thelil'inghearlof logos.Mythology,understoodastheinventionandthe recitation of myt hs(t houghthereci tation cannotbedisti nguishedfromits invcntion) ,is "lived and living";init"archeardwords springingfromthe soMYTHJNTERRUI)TED ahumani.ty. totheworld." I.Itisspeechli vefromthe ongm,li vebecauseItIS ongmalandori gi nalbecauseitislive.Initsfirq declamationIherear.i sesthedawn.simult aneously,ofthe.....orld,ofgOds. andofmen.MythIS thereforemuchmorethanakindoffirs tcultuft itisthe"ori ginal culture,"itisinfinitelymorethanaculture:i; IS transcen.dence of o.fspeech,ofthecosmos,andsoon} presentedImmedmtely,Immool3telyImmanenttotheverythingittra scends and itil!uminates or consigns toit s destiny.Mythis theof amouthImmedl3telyadequat etotheclosureof auni verse. .Thusmythisnot70mposedof justanyspeech,anditdoesnotspeak Justlanguage.ItIS thespeech andthelanguageof theveryIhingsthat mamfeslthemselves,itisthecommunicati onofthesethings:itdoesnot speakoftheappearanceortheaspectofIhings:rOll her.inmYlh,their rhythmspeaks andIheirmusicsounds.IthasbeenwrittenIhal"myth and Sprachgesang(I hesongof language)arefundamentall y oneandthesame Ihing .... 17MythisverypreciselytheiI/canto/i ontha!givesri se10aworld andbringsforthalanguage,thatgivesrisetoaworldintheadventof. language.Itisthereforeindissociablefromarit eoracult.Indeedill enuncialionorrecitalisitselfalreadyarimal.Mythicril ualisthemunitarianarticulat ionofmythicspeech. Thisnotsomelhingaddedontomyth:mythicspeechis communltanan In lIs essence.A pri vatemythis asrare as a strict ly idiomatic language.Mytharisesonl yfromacommunilY andforit:Iheyengender another, infi ni tely and immediatel y. ,I Not hing ismore common, nOlhin, ISmoreabsolutely commonIhanmyth.Dialogicscanonly occurbelwem thosewhoaresitualedinIhespaceof exchangeorthesymbolicfunction orbot h.IIismYlhthatarrangesthespaces,andl orsymbolizes.Myth the. sharesanddi visionsthatdistribut eacommunil Y anddis-tingUi sh 11 forII self,articulatingitwit hinil sclf.Neither dialoguenormon-ologue:mythistheuniquespeechofthemany,whocometherebyto oneanother,whocommunicateandcommuneinmyth. .ThISIS becausemythnecessarilycontai nsapaCI.namely,thepactof liS ownrecognition:inasinglegest ure.inasinglesentence,insum,myth sayswhatis andsays that weagree 10say thatthis is(italso says,therefore, whatsayi ngis).ItdocsnotcommunicateaknowledgeIhatcanbeverified fromelsewhere:itisself-communi cat ing(inthisrespectitisagain/(lu/e-goricaf).Inolherwords,alongwit hknowledge,aboutwhateverobjectit mightbe,itcommunicatesal sot hecommunicat ionof thisknowledge. Mythcommunicatesthecommon,thebeing-commoll of whalitreveals orwhatitrecites.Consequent ly,31Ihesametimeascachoneofil srevc-MYTHI NTERRUJ>TEI)51 I lions.it alsoreveals the communitytoitself andfounds it.Mythis always mYl hofcommunity,thmistosay,ilisalwaysIhemythofacom-I lunion-t heuniquevoiceof themany-capableof invent ingandshari ng myth.Thereisnomyt hthatdoesnotatleastpresuppose(whenitdocs infactstateit)themythof the communitarian(orpopular)rcvelation of myths. Thecommunityofmyt hisIhusproperl yspeakingmYlhinghumanity. humanityaccedingtoitself.ThemYlhof communion,likecommunism-"asthercalappropriat ionofhumanessencebymanandforman,man's lOla!return 10himsel f as socialmyt h, absolutely andri gorously, ina lotal reciprocit y of myt h and communit y atthe heart of myt hicIhought orthemythicworld. (Thisdoesnotcontradicl ,indeedthecontraryisthecase,thefactIhat O1)'thsareatthesametimemostoften aboutanisolatedhero.Inoneway oranother,IhisheromakesIhecommunil y commune-andulli matelyhe alwaysmakesitcommuneinthecommunicationthathehimselfeffects betweenexistenceandmeaning,betweentheindividualandthepeople: "Thecanonicalformofmythiclifeisprecisel ythatofthehero.Initthe pragmaticisatthesametimesymbolic.")!OThustherecanbenohumanil ythatdoesnotincessantl yrenewitsact of my/hoI ion.Thenotionofa" newmyt hology,"whichappearedinlena around1798,:1cont ainsbot hIheideaofanecessaryinnovationinorder tocreate anewhumanworldon the ground of thefi nishedworld of anci ent mythology.andatthesametimetheideathatmythologyisalwaysthe obligatory form-andperhaps the essence-of innovation.Anewhumanit y mustarisefrom/ inilSnewmyth,andthismythilselfmustbe(according toSchlegel)nothinglessthanthetOializationofmodernliteratureand philosophy,aswellasancientmythology,revivedandunitedwiththe mythologiesoftheot herpeoplesof theworld.Thetotalizationofmyt hs goeshandinhandwilhthemYlhof totali zation,andIhe" new"mythology essent iallyconsists intheproductionof aspeechthatwouldunite,totalize, andtherebyput(back)inlotheworldthetotalit y of thewords,discourses, andSongsofahumanit yintheprocessofreachingit sfulfillment(or reachingitsend). Itca nthcreforebesaidthatromanticism.communism,andstructuralism, throughtheirsecret butvery precise communit y, constitute thelast tradition of myth . Ihe lastwayformyt htoinventitself andtotransmititself (which, forl1lyt h,is oneandthesameIhing).This is the traditionof the my/halion ofIllythit self:myt hbecomes(wantstobecome,throughIhewilltoits ownpower)itsownenunciation.il sowntalltegory,equivalenttoilSown MYTHI NTERRUPTEI> Inu handil sownreaIi 7.ation,it sownsuppressionandentirelynew guralion,andhenceIhefinalinaugurationof theinauguralit self Ihat has always been.MYlhrealizes ilself dialcctically;itexceeds all figures10announcethepuremytho-logyofanabsolutel yfc symbolizi ng,ordi stributivespeech.11 IIishereIhatthingsareinterrupt ed. Thetradilionissuspendedattheverymomentitfulfill sitself.It interruptedatthatpreciseandfamiliarpointwhereweknowthatitis amyt h. Itistruethatwedonotknow verymuchaboulwhatmythictruth orisformenlivinginthemidstofwhatwecall" myths ."Bulwe Ihalwe-our communit y,if itis one,ourmodernandpost modernh,.m, ... ity- havenorelationtothemythofwhichwearespeaking,evenas fulfi llitortrytofulfillit.Inasense,forusallthatremai nsofmyth itsfulfi llmentorilswi ll.Wenolongerliveinmythiclife,norina of mythicinvention or speech.Whenwespeakof "myth"ogy"wemean thenegation of something atleastasmuchas II of something.Thisiswhy our sceneof myth,our discourseofmyth, allourmythologicalthinkingmakeupamyt h:tospeakof mYlhhas everbeen10speakof itsabsence.Andtheword"mYlh"ilself desi,: ..... theabsenceof whatilnames. Thisiswhatconstitutestheinterruption:"myth"iscmoff from ownmeaning,onitsownmeaning,by its ownmeaning.Ifiteven stillhas apropermeaning. Inorder to saythatmythisamyth (thatmYlhisa myth,or that"myth" is amylh),ithasbeennecessarytoplay ontwoquile distinciandopposite meaningsoftheword"myth."Thephrase" mythisamyth"meansill effectIhatmyth,asinaugurationorasfoundation,isamYlh,inother words,afiction,asimpleinvention.ThisdisparilYbetweenthepossible meanings of "myt h" is in a sense as ancient as Plato and Aristot le.However, itisnotbychanceIhatitsmodernusageinthisphrasethatunderliesour knowledgeofmyth- thatmYlhisamYlh-produces,inaplayonwords, theSlructureof theabyss.ForthissenlencecOnlains,aswellastwohel-erogeneousmeaningsforasinglevocable,onemYl hicrealit y,onesingle ideaof mythwhosetwomeaningsandwhoseinfinitelyironicrelat ionare engenderedby akindof internal disunion.ThisisthesamemythIhatthe traditionofmythconceivedasfoundati onandasfiction.Thephrasethat plays onthedisuni on PUIS toworktheresourcesof aformerunion, asecrcl andprofoundunionattheheartof mythitself. MYTHt NTERRUPTED0/101 'IhicIhoughl-operating in acertain way throughthe dialecticalsub-,of thetwomeaningsofmYlhl.J-isineffectnothingotherthanthe .- ... ,hiof a foundingfiction,ora foundatIOnby ficllon.Farfrombemg //IOII!!.d hh .positi ontooneanother,IhetwO concept s areconJolneIn temytIC 11101',..hI"hI htofmyth.WhenSchlegelcall soranewmytoogy,eappea s !lIOUg.. . .I . h expressly 10art,topoetry,andtothecreatI veImaglnallon.tIS teImag-.'. "infaclthatholdsthesecretof anoriginalforceof nature,alonc InatlO "..... ble of genuine inauguration.PoeticfictI on IS the true- If nottruthful-capa....ShlI originof a world.And when Schelling ta kesobJcctlon, In a sense,1.0cege deveryonehereproachesforconsideringmythologyasaficti on,when declaresthatIheforcesalworkinmyth"were .imagi nary forces.bulwerethe true theogonicpowersthemselves,201 hiS.none-thelesstendstopri vilegewhatonewouldhave10callanautOimagtnlllgor anautofictioningof nalUre. Schell ing'sanalysisofmythologyisundoubtedlythemoslpowerfulto beproducedbeforestructualanalysis.Onemighteventhinkthatthese constitutetwoversions-the" ideali st"andIhe"positivist"- ofthesame mythof mythology,andof Ihesamemythologyofmyth. According10thismyt h,oraccordingtothislogic,mythol ogy.cannot bedenouncedasafiction,forthefictionlhatitisisanoperation.'an operat ionof engendermentforSchelling,of distributionandthe slrucluralists.Mythisnot"a myt h"ifithas,quamyth,Ihlsoperative powerandifIhisoperativepowerisfundamentall ynot homogeneous withIhe differentbut similar operationsforSchelhn.g by consciousness.forthestructuralistsbyscience.InthIS mYlhIS notsuscept ibletoanalysisonthebasisof aIruthotherthanIt sown,and consequentl y above allnOIinterms of " fiction."Rather,itmust be analyzed accordingtoIhetrUlhthatitsfi ctionconfersuponit ,ormore accordingtothetruththat",ythingfictioningconfersuponmythICtales andnarrati ves.This iswhatSchelling demands withhis "taulegory."Mylh Signifiesit self,andIhereby convertsits ownfictionintofoundationor into theinaugural ionof meaningitself. Mythisthereforenotonlymadeupofapropertruth,suigeneris,bUI itperhapstendstobecometruthitself,thattruththatforSpi nOla.aswell asforessentialphilosophicalthoughtingeneral,seipsa",patefacit.But againitisthis "patefaction"of myth,andprecisely this,thaIconfersupon itsfictivecharacter- inanauto-fictioning.AsSchell ingadmits," It istrue inacertainway"that"the expressions of mythologyare figurati ve": bUI"forthemythologicalconsciousness"thisisthesamethingasthe improprietyofthemajorit yofour"figurati veexpressions."Whichisto saythat. JUSt as thi s figuration is appropriate inlanguage.so wilhin mythol-ogyimproprietyisquiteproper.appropriatetotheIruthandtheficlionof 0MYTHI NTERRUPTED mylh.MylllOlogyistherefore figurationproper.Suchisitssecret,andthe secrelof itsmyth-ofitstruth-forIhewholeof Westernconsciousness.l6 Tobefigural ionproper,tobeIheproperfigurationof theproper,isto realizeproperly- improperly-properly,asasupplementof propriet yZ1-the properitself.Naturewithallils.. po.....ers ..wouldneverattain10ilstruth withoUithedoubleprocessof naturaland figurative"theogony,"effective andrepresentedinconsciousness,presentingitself,ulleringitselfinits mYlhO$. ForSchellingthisisnotamailerof asecondaryrepresentation.of an interpretati onofnaturebyaprimitiveconsciousness.Itconcernsrather muchmorethefactthatnature,in its ori gin, engenders the godsby affect in. immediateconsciousness(whichbecomesthereby,andonl ythereby,true consciousness).Itaffectsitfromtheoutside,itstrikesitwithswpor,as Schellingsays(sillpefacioquasielaUonila).!1Itisinthisstupor,whichis anteriortoallrepresentation,thatrepresenlationitsel fisborn.Itmarks therepresentativeruptureit self,the"initialbreakeffectedbymyt hic thought"ofwhichLevi-Straussspeaks,andmoreexactlytherupture broughtaboutby"theprimaryschematismof mythi c Here,asinKant ,"schematism"designatestheessentialoperationof transcendentalimagination,whichinKantproducesthe"non-sensible images"thatfurnisha" rulefortheproductionofempiricalimages," whereasforLevi-Strauss,inaninversebUIsymmetricalmovement,myt h "subsumesindi vidualitiesundertheparadigm,enlargi ngandatthesame ti meimpoveri shingtheconcretegivensbyforcingthemoneaftertheother to crossover Ihedisconti nuous thresh holds that separate the empiricalorder fromthesymbolicorder.fromtheimaginary order.andfi nall yfromsche-malism."Myth,inshort,isthetranscendentalautofigurati onofnature andofhumanity,ormoreexact lytheautofiguration-or theautoi magi-nation-of natureashumanit y andofhumanityasnat ure.Mythicspeech thusperformsthehumanization of nature(and/ orit sdi vinization)andlhe naturalizationof man(and/ orhi sdi vinization).Fundamentally,mylhos is theaciof languageparexcell ence,theperforming of theparadigm.asthe logosfictionsthisparadigmtoitselfin ordertoprojectuponittheessence andthepoweritbelievestobeitsown. Inthisrespect,theromanticgoalofanewmythology,onethatwould befi cti oning,imaginary,playful,poetic.andperformative,merel ybrings toli ghtthethinkingfromwhichthemythof myt harises:itconsistsinthe thoughtof a poeticofictioning ontology,an ontology present edinthe figure ofanontogonywherebeingengendersit selfby figuringitself,bygivi ng it selftheproperimageof itsownessenccandthe self-represent ationof its presenceanditspresent.DiesicllselbslerkfiirendeMylilO/ogieisthecor-rel ativeof anessentiall yI1IYllli"8bei ngor of amythingessenccof being. MYTHt NTERRUPTED55 Andthcmythof myt h,it s truth . is thaifiction is in effect.in this ontogony. inaugural.In sum,fictioning isthesubjectof bei ng.Mimesisisthepoesis oftheworldastrueworldof gods ,ofmen,andofnature.Themythof Il\.thisin no wayan ontological fiction; itisnothing other than an ontology ,.I of fictionorrepresentation:itisthereforeaparticularl yful fi lledandfu-fill ingformof Iheontologyof subjecti vit yingcneral. Butthisisalsowhatprovokestheinterrupti on.FromSchellingtoLevi-StraUSS,fromthefi rsttothelastversionof mythicthought ,wepassfrom oneinterruptiontoanother.Inthebeginning,thepowerofmyt hstri kes consciousnesswi thstuporandputS it"out sideof itsel f"(thatis ,itmakes itconscious).Intheend,thisconsciousnessbecomeconsciousnessof self andofthetotalit y quamythsuspendsitselfon(oras)theconsciousness of thcmythic (or subjecti ve) essence of the"self"of allthings.Levi-Strauss infactwrites: My analysis ... hasbroughtoutthemyt hiccharacterof objccts:the universe.natureandmanwhich.overthousands,millionsor billionsof years,will,whenallissaidanddone.havesimpl y demonstratedtheresourccsoftheircombinator y systems,inthe ma nnerof somegreatmythology,beforecoll apsinginon themselvesandvanishing,throughtheselfevidenceoftheirown decay. lD Oragain: Wisdomconsistsformaninseeinghimselfli vehi sprovisional hi storicalinternality,whil eatthesametimeknowing(butona differentregister)thatwhathelivessocompletelyandintensel yis amyth-andwhichwillappearassuchtomenofafut ure century. J1The disunion of themeanings of "myth"is therefore once againatwork attheheartoftheverythinki ngmeanttodismissanydenunciationof mythonthebasisofitsbeingfiction,attheheartofathinkingofthe communionoffoundati onandficti on(offou ndationbyfiction).Infact. the sameLevi-Strauss,ina tone allinallvery closeto Schellings.contended thatmyt hs," farfrombeingtheworksofman's' myth-makingfacult y' turni ng itsback on realit y."preserve"modes of observation andrefl ection" whoseresults "were securedtenthousand years"before those of themodern andwhich" sti llremainalthebasisof ourcivilizat ion."J! r hephrase"mythisamyth"harborssimli/Illneolislyandintilesame {hough {adisabusedirony ("foundat ionis afiction")andanonto-poelico-logicalaffirmation("ficti onisafoundation"). Thisiswhymyt hisintcrrupted.Itisinterruptedbyitsmyth. 560MYTHI NTERRUPTED :hiS iswhyIheideaof a"newmythology"isnOIonl y dangerous,itis futile,fora newmYlhologywouldpresuppose,as its condition of possibility. amythofmyththatwouldnotbesubjecitotherigorouslogicwhose courseextends fromSchelling toLcvi-StraussJl_or else,fromPlatotous_ andthaiiscomposedessentiall yofthisnihilistorannihilatinglogic(or thismytlrics):IhebeingIhatmYlhengendersimplodesinit sownfiction. The power of mythhas spannedtwo interruptions:Iheinterruplion of pure nalure andtheinterruption of mythitself.The appeal tothepower of mYth (whether this appealbepoetical orpol itical,andilcan only be,necessarily. bothalthe same li me:this iswhatmYlhis, itis Ihepoeticity of the poli tical andthepolilicality of Ihepoetic-foundat ionandficlion- inasmuch asthe poetical andthepolitical arcincludedinthe space of myth'sIhinking),thil appeal,then,orthisdesireforthepowerofmyth,hassustaineditself throughthesetwoint erru ptions- betweenthenatureopenedupbyan auto fi gurationofitsnaturalpowerandthecultureclosedbyanaUIO-resolutionofit sillusoryfi gures. Essentially.myth'swilltopowerwastotalitarian.Itmayperhapseven define totalilarianism(orwhatI havecalledimmanent ism),whichisthere-forestrict ly speakingalsointerrupted. Usi ngaratherpoordi sti nctionforthesakeofclarity,onemightsay thatmyth'swill(topower)isdoublytotalitarianor formandinitscont ent. Initsform,becausemyth'swill,whichismanifeslmoreexactlyasthe willtomythation,is perhapsnothing other thanthewilltowill YWemust turn10Kantforthedefinition of will:will,whichis nothing butthefaculty ofdesiringdeterminedaccordingtoreason,isthefacullYenablingthe causeofrepresentationstocoi ncidewilhtherealil Y ofthesesamerepre-sentations.Schelling'smytiringnalUreisawill:iliseven,anticipating Schopenhauer,thewilloftheworldandtheworldaswi ll.Mythisnot simplerepresentation,ilisrepresentationatwork,producingitself-in an autopoet icmimesis-aseffect:itisfictionthatfounds.Andwhatitfounds is notafictiveworld(whichiswhatSchell ingandLevi-Strauss challenged), butfictioningasthefashioningofaworld,orthebecoming-worldof fictioni ng.Inotherwords,thefashioningof aworldforthesubject,the becoming-worl dof subjectivily. Astheogony,cosmogony,mythogony,andmythology,myth'swillis myth'swilltowill.AsIhavealready said,essentially,mYlhcommunicates it sel f,andnOIsomethingelse.Communicalingitself.itbringsintobeing whatitsays.itfoundsil sficlion .Thisefficaciousself-communicalionis .... I YTHI NTERRUPTED057 ", ill-andwi llissubj ect ivitypresented(representingitself)asaremain-dcrlesstotality. i\IYlhicwillistotalitarianinitscontent,foritscontentisalwaysa communion,orratherallcommunions:of manwithnature,ofman. with God.of manwithhimself,of menamongthemselves.MythcommUlllcates itselfnecessaril yasamythbelongi ng10thecommunit y,anditcommu- amythof communit y:communion,communism.communitarian-ism.communication,communit yitselftakensimpl yandabsolutely, absol utecommunit y.ForPierreClast res.thecommunit yofIheGuarani Indill nsprovidesanexemplaryfigure(ormyt h)ofthis: TheirgreatgodNamanduemergedfromthedarknessandinvented theworld.Hefirstof allmadeSpeechcome,thesubSlance commontodivinitiesandhumans . . .. Societyistheenjoymentof thecommongoodthatisSpeech.InSlituledasequalbydivine decision-bynalure!-societygat hereditselftogelherint oasingle, thatis,undi videdwhole .... Themenof thissocietyareall Olle.l! Absolutecommunity- myth- isnOisomuchthe100alfusionofindi-vidual s,butthewill of communit y:thedesire to operate,through Ihepower ofmyth,thecommunionthatmythrepresentsandthatitrepresentsasa communionorcommunicationofwi ll s.Fusionensues:mythrepresents multipleexistencesasimmanenttoitsownuniquefiction,whichgat hers themtogetherandgivesthemtheircommonfigureinilsspeechandas thisspeech. This doesnotmean only Ihatcommunityis amyth, thatcommunilarian communion isamyth.It means Ihatmyt h andmyt h's forceandfoundation areessentialto communityandthattherecanbe,therefore,no communi ty outsideofmYlh.Wherevertherehasbeenmyt h,assumingtherehasbeen somethingofthesortandthatwecanknowwhatthismeans,therehas been.necessarily,community,andviceversa.Theintcrruptionof mythis thereforeal so,necessari ly,theinterruptionof community. Justasthereisnonewmythology,sothereisnonewcommunityeither, norwilltherebe.IfmythisamYlh.communit yisreabsorbedintothis abyssalongwit hitorisdi ssolvedinthisirony.Thisiswhylamentingthe " lossof communit y"isusuall yaccompaniedbylamentingthe" loss"of thepowerofmyths. Andyetthepure andsimplecffacementof community.withoutremain-der,is ami sfortune.Notasentimentalmisfortune,notevenanethical one, butanontological misfoTlune-or disaster.Forbeingswhoareessentially, andmorethanessentially,beingsincommon.itisaprivationofbeing. 580MYTHINTERRUPTED Beingincommonmeansthatsingularbeingsare,presentthemselves.and, appearonlytotheextentthattheycompear(comparoissenl).totheextent thattheyareexposed,presented,oroffered10oneanot her.Thispearance(comporution)isnOIsomet hingaddedontothei rbeing;rather, thei rbeingcomesint obeinginit. Hencecommunit ydoesnotdi sappear.Itneverdisappears.ThemunilYresists:inasense, asIhavesaid,itisresistanceit self.Withoutthe compearanceof bei ng-or of singularbeings-therewouldbenothing,or rathernothingbutbeingappearingtoitself,notevenincommonwith itself,justimmanentBei ngimmersedinadensepearance(porence).The communi tyresiststhisinfi niteimmanence.Thecompearanceofsi ngular beings-or of the singul arit y of bei ng-keeps open a space, a spacing wit hin immanence. Isthereamythforthiscommunity of compearance?Ifmythisalways amythof thereunionandthe communionof communi ty.thereisnot.On thecontrary,itistheinterruptionofmyththatrevealsthedisjuncti veor hiddennatureof communit y.Inmyth,communit y wasproclaimed:inthe interruptedmyt h,communityturnsoultobewhatBl anchothasnamed " theunavowablecommunity." Doestheunavowablehaveamyth?Bydefini ti on,itdoesno!.The absenceof avowalproduces neither speechnornarrative.Butif community isinseparablefrommyth.musttherenOIbe,accordingtoaparadoxical law,amythof theunavowable communit y?Butthisisimpossible.Letme repeat:theunavowable communi ty,the withdrawal of communionor corn-munit arianecstasy,arerevealedintheinterruptionof myt h.Andthe inter-rupti onisnotamyt h:" Itisimpossibletocontesttheabsenceofmyth," wroteBatai ll e. Wearethusabandonedtothis"absenceofmyth."Batailledefinedit thus: Ifwesayquitesimplyandinalllucidi tythatpresentdaymanis definedbyhisavidit yformyt h,andifweaddthatheisal so definedbytheawarenessof notbei ngabletoaccedetothe possibili tyof creatingaveritablemyth,wehavedefinedakindof myththatisthe'absenceoj myth.J6 Bataillearri vedatthisdefinitionafterhavi ngconsideredtheproposal, whichcamefromsurrealism(thatis,fromanavatarofromanticism),to createnewmyths.Hegoesontosaythat" neitherthesemythsnorthese ritualswi llbetruemyt hsorritualssincetheywillnotrecei vetheendorse-mentof the communit y."This endorsementcannotbeobtai nedif the myth doesnOlalreadyexistin thecommunity-be itin themouthof a solebeing wholendsithi ssi ngularvoice.Theveryideaof inventi ngamyth,inthis MYTHI NTERRUPTED0S9 eis a contradictioninterms.Nei ther the communit y nor, consequentl y, sellS .fh "I").tsthe Iheindi vidual(thepoet ,thepriest .or?ne0telTIste.neTsmven h'10thecontraryitis theywhoaremventedorwho1O\'entthemselves IllYt. '.Ifhhth .themyth.Anditistotheextentthathedefi neshlOt setrouge ofcommunitythatmodernmandefineshimselfthroughtheabsence ofmyt h. t\Ithesameti me,Batai lledefi nestheabsenceofmythas"aki ndof myth"initself.Heexplainsthisasfollows: Ifwedefineourselvesasincapableof arrivingatmythandas thoughawaitingitsdeli very,wedefinethe of present -day. humanit yasanabsenceof myth.AndhefindshimselfbeforethiS absenceof mythasonewholivesit,andli vesit,letus wit hthepassionthatinformertimesanimatedthose whowantedtoli venotinternrealitybutinmythicrealit y 18ataillethereforealsodefinesmyt hasamyth);thisabsenceof . mythbeforehimcanbeinfinitelymoreexaltingthanhadbeen.In for mertimes,thosemyt hslinkedtoeverydayli fe. Whatmakestheabsenceofmythamyt hisnolonger,ornotdirectl y, inanycase,itscommunitariancharacter.Onthecontrary,themythic relat iontothe"absenceofmyth"isherepresented,inappearance,a.s. an indi vidualrelation.If theabsenceofmythmarksthecommoncondmon of present -day man, this condition,rather than constituting communit y, undoesit.Whatassuresthefunctioningofalifeledaccordmgtomyth, here,isthepassionandtheexaltationwi thwhichthecontentofmyth-herethe "absence of myt h"-canbeshared.WhatBatailleunderstandsby "passion"isnothingotherthanamovementthatcarri estothelimit-:-t.o thelimitofbeing.Ifbei ngisdefinedinthesingul arityofbei ngs(t hiS IS atbOllom thewayBatai lle, consciously or not,transcribes the Heideggerian thoughtofthefi nitudeofbeing),thatistosayifbei ngisnotcommuni nginitselfwithitself.ifitisnotitsownimmanence,butIfItIS thesingularaspectof bei ngs(thisis howI woul dtranscribeHeideggerand Ilat aille,onebytheot her).if itsharesthesi ngul aritiesandisitselfshared outbythem,thenpassioncarriestothelimitofsi ngularit y:logicall y,thi s li mitistheplaceof community. Thi splace,orpoi nt ,mightbeoneoffusion,of consumpti onc?m-munion inanimmanenceregai ned,wi ll edanew,staged oncemore:,tmIght beanewmyth,thatistosaytherenewaloftheoldmyth,stillidentical toitself.Butatthispoint- atthepointof communit y-thereis,nocommunit y:nor,therefore,isthereanymyth.Theabsenceof mythIS accompanied. as Batai ll e saysamomentlater. by theabsence of communit y. Thepassionfortheabsenceofmyt htouchesupontheabsenceofcom-600MYTHI NTERRUPTED munity.AnditisinIhisrespectthaIitcanbeapassion(somethingother thanawi lltopower). Thispointis nottheinverse or negativeimageof a community gat hered in andbyits myth,for whatBataill e call s theabsence of community ISnotthepure andsimpledissolution of community.Theabsenceof com_ munityappearswiththerecognitionof thefactthatnocommunity,inthe fusionthatitisessent iallyseeking,forexamplein"theancientfest ival " canfail"tocreateanewindividual,thatonemi ghtcallthe individual." The fusionof community, instead of propagating its movement reconstitutesitsseparation:communityagainstcommunit y.ThusthefUI: fillmentof communityisitssuppression.Toattaintoimmanenceistobe cutoff fromanotherimmanence:toallainimmanenceistocutoff imma-nenceitself. Absenceof communityrepresents thatwhichdoes notfulfillcommunity orcommunityitselfinasmuchasitcannotbefulfilledor engenderedas newindividual.Inthissense," theappurtenanceofeverypossiblecom-munitytowhatI call... absenceof communit y mustbethegroundof any possiblecommunity."Intheabsenceofcommunityneithertheworkof communit y,norIhecommunity aswork,nor communism canfulfillitself; rather,thepassionofandforcommunit ypropagatesitself,unworked, appealing,demandingtopassbeyondeverylimitandeveryfulfillment enclosedintheformofanindividual.ItisthusnOIanabsence,buta movement,itisunworkinginitssingular"activity,"itisthepropagation, eventhecontagion,oragainthecommunicationof communityitsel fthai propagatesitselforcommunicatesitscont agionbyitsveryinterruption. Thiscontagionint erruptsfusionandsuspendscommunion.andthis arrest or rupture once againleads backto the communication of community. Insteadof closingitin,thisinterrupt iononceagainexposessingularityto itslimit,whichistosay,toothersingularit ies.Insteadoffulfi llingitself inaworkof deathandintheimmanenceofasubject,communit ycom-municatesitselfthroughtherepetitionandthecontagionofbirths:each birthexposesanothersingularit y.asupplementarylimit ,andtherefore anothercommunication.Thisisnottheoppositeofdeath,forthedeath of thissi ngul arbei ngwhohasjustbeenbornisalsoinscribedandcom-municatedbyit slimit.Itisalreadyexposedtoitsdeath,anditexposes ustoitaswell .Whichmeans.essentially,thatthisdeathaswellasthis birthareremovedfromus,areneitherourworknortheworkofthe coll ectivit y. On allsides theinterruptionturns community towardthe outsideinstead ofgatheringitintowardacenter- oritscenteristhegeographicallocus of an indefini telymultiple exposition.Singularbeingscompear: their corn-pearanccconsti tutestheirbeing,put sthemincommunicati onwithone I.tYTHt NTERRUl'TEDa 6t anol her.Buttheinterruptionof community.theinterruption of thetotalit y thatwouldfulfillit,istheverylawofcompearance.Thesingularbeing appears to other singular beings;itis communicatedtotheminthe singular. IIisa cont act , itis a cont agion: atouching,the transmission of atrembling atthe edge of being, the communication of apassionthatmakes usfellows, orthecommunicationof thepassiontobefellows,tobeincommon. Theinterruptedcommunitydoesnotfleefromitself:butitdoesnot belongtoitself,itdoesnotcongregate,itcommunicatesitselffromone singul arplacetoanother."Thebasis of communicati on,"writesBlanchot, "isnotnecessari lyspeech,noreventhesilencethatisit sfou ndationand punctuation,butexposuretodeath,andnolongermy death,butsomeone else's, whoseliving and closest presence is already an eternal andunbearable absence." J' Thus"themythoftheabsenceofmyth"-whichcorrespondstothe interrupted community-is itself neither anothermyth,nor anegativemyth (northenegativeofamyth),butisamythonlyinasmuchasitconsists intheinterrupt ionofmyth.Itisnotamyt h:thereisnomyt hofthe interruptionofmyth.Buttheinterruptionof mythdefinesthepossibility ofa" passion"equaltomythicpassion- andyetunl eashedbythesus-pension of mythic passion: a "conscious,"" lucid"passion, asBataille calls iI ,apassionopenedupbycompearanceandforit.Itisnotthepassion fordissolution, but the passiontobe exposed, andto know thatcommunity itselfdoesnotlimitcommunity.thatcommunityisalwaysbeyond,thatis, ontheoutside,offeredoutsideofeachsingularity,andonthisaccount alwaysinterruptedontheedgeof theleastoneof thesesingularities. Interruptionoceursattheedge,orratheritconstitutestheedgewhere beingstouch each other. expose themselvestoeachother andseparatefrom oneanother,thuscommunicatingandpropagatingtheircommunity.On thisedge,destinedtothis edgeandcall edforthby it,bornof interruption, thereisapassion.Thisis,if youwill ,whatremainsof myth,orrather,it isitself theinterruptionof myth. Theint errupt ionof myth-andtheinterruptionof myt hasthepassionof andforcommunit y-disjoinsmythfromit self,or withdraws itfromitself. Itisnotenoughtosay,"Mythisamyth,"sincetheformulaforirony,as I have already said , is fundamentall y the same as theformula forthe identit y ofmyth(andforitsmythicidentity). Intheinterruptionthereisnolongeranythingtobedonewithmyth, inasmuch as myt h is always a completion, a fulfillment.Buttheinterruption isnotasilence-whi chitselfcanhaveamyth,orcanbemythitselfin oneofit sful fi llments.Intheinterruptionofmythsomethi ngmakesitself 620MYTHI NTEIt RUPTED heard,namely.whatremainsofmythwhenitisint errupted- andwhi chhoorh" notI.not. Ie\lery\loiceof interruption,ifwecansay this. !hls\lOl ceISI.he\loiceof communit y,orofthecommunity'spassion. If11 mustbe thatmYlhisessentialtocommunil y-butonlyin thatItcompletesitandgi\lesittheclosureandthedestiny of an ofcompletedtotali ty-itisequall ynecessarytoafrirmthat Inthe of mythisheardthe\loice of theinterrupted community, Ih: of theIncomplete, exposedcommunit y speaking asmYlhwithout beingIIIanyrespectmythicspeech. .Thisseemstoplaybackthedeclarationsofmyth,forinthe IIlterrupt lonthereis nothing new tobe heard, there is nonewmythbreaki hh "ng troug; .. tIS Iheoldstory oneseemstohear.Whenavoice,ormusic,is one hears just at that instantsomet hing else, ami xture ofandnoisesthathadbeencO\leredoverbythesound, butIIIthI S somelhlllgelseonehearsagainthe\loiceorthemusicthathas becomeinawaythe\loiceor themusicof itsownint erruption:akindof echo,butonethatdoesnotrepealthatof whichitisthere\lerberation. Initself,inil spresenceandinit sfu lfillment ,the\loiceorthemusicis playedOUI,ithasdissolved .Themythologicalprestalionisended.itno longergoodandnolongerworks(i file\lerworkedinthewaywe thoughlItwassupposed10work,inourfunctional.structuralandcom. munalmythology).Butinsome way theinterrupted\loice ormusicimprints theschemaof itsretreatinthemurmurortherustlingtowhichtheint er. r.upti?ngi \lesItisnolongerthesermOn- ortheperformance,asthe lingUI sts or arllSlS say-though itis ncitherwithout\loice nor withoutmusic. Theinterruplionhasavoice,andit sschemaimprint silSel fintherustling of the exposedtoits owndispersion.When myth stops playing, thecommunllythatresistscompletionandfusion,thecommunit ythat propagatesandexposesit self,makesit selfheardinacertainway.Itdoes notspeak.of course.nordoesitma kemusic.AsIhavesaiditisit self interruption,foritisuponthisexposureofsingularthaimyth ISIIll errupt ed.Buttheinterruptionitselfhasasingularvoice,a\loiceor aret iringmusicthatistakenup,held,andatthesameti meexposedin anechothatisnotarepetition-il isthe\loiceof community,whichinits wayperhapsa\lOWS,wi thoutsayingit,theuna\lowabl e.orstateswithout declaringitthesecretof communit y.ormoreprecisel ypresents.without enunciating it . the mythlesstruth of endlessbeing-in-common. of thisbeing incommonthatisnota"commonbeing"andthatthecommunit yitself thereforedoesnotlimi tandthatmylhisincapableoffoundingorcon-taining.Thereisavoiceof communit y art icul atedintheint errupti on.and evenoutof theint errupt ionitsel f. MYTHI NTEII.II.UI'TEI)063 A namehas been given to this \loice of interrupt ion: literat ure (or wri li ng, if weadopltheacceplationof this wordthatcoincideswithliterature). This nameisnodoubtunsuitable.Butnonameissuitablehere.Theplaceor theIllomentof interruption iswithoutsuitabi lity.AsBlanchotput s it." The onlycommunicati onthathenceforthsuitsit(thecommunit YI ... passes throughliteraryunsuit abilit y.")Whatisunsuit ableaboutli terat ureisthat itisnotsuitedtoIhemythof community.nor 10the communit y of myt h. Itissuitedneithertocommunionnortocommunication. Andyet,if thename" literature"is alwaysinastate of notbeing suited to" literaryunsuitability"itself.isthisnotbecauseli teratureissoclosely relatedtomyth?Isnotmyththeoriginofliterature,Iheoriginofall literat ureandperhapsinasenseil s solecont ent ,itssolenarrative.or else itssoleposlUre(thatoftheredlali st,whoishi sownhero)?Isthereany literary scenenOI takenfromthemythological scene?(AndisnOI thistrue also,inthisrespect ,ofthephilosophicsceneor scenes .which,inoneway oranother,belongtothe"genre"ofliterature?) NOIonl yisliteraturethebeneficiary(ortheecho)ofmyth,lileralure hasit selfinasensebeenthoughtandnodoubtshouldbethoughtas myth- asthemythofthemythofmythlesssociet y.l9Inanearly textby Bl anchot.onecvenreadsthatinli terature" e\lerythingshouldendina mythicin\lention:onl ywherethesourceofre\lealingimagesopensupis thereawork ... ..,ItisnotcertainthatBlanchotwouldsellleforsucha sent encetoday.Certainly.thereisaworkonl y if thereis" re\lelation"(you mi ghtinterruptmehere:Whatarcwetomakeof thisword"revelat ion"? Doesitnotgoalongwith"myth."asitdoesmoreo\lerwi th"image"?But thisisthespaceofabsoluteunsuitabilil Y:eaehoneofthesewordsalso bespeaksit sowninterrupt ion).Butliterature'sre\lelation.unlikemyth's. doesnOireveal acompletedreality.northerealit y of acompletion.It does notre\leal,inageneralway, some Ihing-itre\lealsrather theunrevealable: namel y.thatilisitself.asaworkthatre\leal sandgi\lesaccesstoa\lision andtothecommunionofavision,essent iall yint erru pled. Inthe work.thereis ashare of mythand ashare of literature or writi ng. Thelatterinterruptstheformer,it" reveals"preciselythroughitsinter-ruplionofthemyth(throughtheincompletionof thestoryorthenarra-ti\'e)-andwhatli terat ure or wri ting reveals is aboveallelscits int erruption, anditisinthisrespeclthatitcanbecalled,ifitstillcanbe-anditno longercanbe- a" mythicinvention." l3uttheshareof mythandtheshareoflileraturearenottwoseparable andopposablepartsattheheartofthework.Rather.theyarcsharesin thesensethat communit y di videsup or sharesoutworksin differentways: nowbywayofmyth.nowbywayofliterature.Thesecondistheint er-ruptionofthefirst." Literature"(or" writing" )iswhat .inlit erature- in 640MYTHtNTERRUPTED sharing.or .thecommunicationofworks-int erruptsmythbygivi n to. whichhasnomythandca nnothaveone0: smcebcmg-m-commonis nowhere,anddoesnotsubsistinamythic;p berevealedto.us'.Iit eralUredoesnotgiveitavoice: ISbemgIncommonthatISli terary(orscri pt uary). What.thisDoesitmeananythi ng?Ihavesaidthatthesole ISthe questionof " literary communism,"or of a" literary of B.lanchOlhasinsistedthat"communit y,in remams.msomeway10writing,"andhasreferred10: Ideal community of literary communication."' Thiscanalwaysmakefor myth,anewandonenotevenasnewassomewould believe.themyt hof theli terarycommunitywasoutli nedforthefi rstti inreali tyitwas perhaps notthe firsttime)by theJena roman(mt andIth.as downtous in variousdifferentwaysthrougheveryt h: the of. a"republicof artists"or,again,theideaofmUni sm (of a certatn ktndof Maoism,forexample) and revolution inherent leisquels,inwritingitself. .But. becausethe ofmythdoesnotmakeupamyth,the bcmg-m-commonof ,:hlchI amspeaking-andthatmany of usare tryilll tospeak thatISsay,towrite-hasnothingtodowiththemyth ofcommuni on! hrough. literat ure,norwiththemyt hofliterarycreation byIf wesay,orif wecanatleasttrytosay,while remamtng conSCIOusof liSunsuitability,thatbeing-in-commonise.rary,If we can attemptto say thatithasits very being in " literature" wrumg,ma certai nvoice,inasi ngularmusic,butalsoinapaint in, . tnadance,andintheexerciseofthought),thenwhat" literature"wiD hav.etodesigna.teisthisbeing. it self ... init sel f.Inotherwords,itwould designate that ontologicalqualit y that gives being incommon, thal doesnotholdItmreserve,beforeoraftercommunit y,asanessenceor man,ofGod,or of theStateachievi ngitsfulfillmentincommunionbul thatrathermakesforabeingthatisonlywhensharedin or rat herwhosequalityofbeing,whosenat ureandstruct ureareshared' (or exposed). It isas.tothestruClUreof sharingasitistoassignan essencetoII.Sharmgdi videsandsharesitself:thisiswhatitistobein common .. One tellitsstory,nordetermineitsessence:thereisno mythOf.lt,norIS thereaphilosophy of it.Butitis" li terature"thatdocs theshanng.Y.doesit,orisit ,preciselytotheextentthatitinterruptS myth.Myt h IS mterruptedby li terat ure precisely 10the extentthatliterature docsnotcometoanend. MYTHI NTERRUPTED065 Ifliteraturedoesnotcometoanend,thisisnotinthemyt hicsenseof an" infinitepoetry,"suchastheromanticsdesired.Norisitinthesense inwhich,forBlanchot,"unworking"wouldbeattainedandpresentedby norinthesensethatthis" unworki ng"wouldbepurelyexterior tothework.Literaturedoesnotcometoanendattheveryplacewhere it comes to an end: on its border,right on the di viding line-a line sometimes st raight(theedge,theborderofthebook),sometimesincredibl ytwisted andbroken(thewriting,readi ng).It doesnotcometoan endattheplace wheretheworkpassesfromanauthortoareader,andfromthisreader toanot herreaderortoanotherauthor.It doesnotcometoanendatthe placewheretheworkpassesontoanot herworkbythe same authoror at theplacewhereitpassesintootherworksofotherauthors.Itdoesnot cometoanendwhereitsnarrativepassesint oothernarrati ves,itspoem intoot herpoems,itsthoughtintoot herthoughts,orintotheinevitable suspensionofthethoughtorthepoem.Itisunendedandunending-in theacti vesense-inthatitisliterature.Anditisliteratureifitisspeech (alanguage,anidiom,awri ti ng)-whateverkindofspeechitmaybe, writtenornot,fictiveordiscursive,literatureornot-thatputsintoplay nothingotherthanbeingincommon. " Literature,"thoughtastheinterruptionofmyt h,merelycommuni-cates-inthesensethatwhatitputsintoplay.setstowork,anddestines tounworki ng,isnot hingbutcommunicat ionitself,thepassagefromone toanot her,thesharingof onebytheother.Whatisatstakeinliterature isnotjustliterature:inthis.itisunli kemyt h,whichcommunicatesonly itself,communicatingitscommunion.Itistruethattheprofoundtexture of theliteraryworkseemsattimessimilarinitsint ention:itisindeedtrue thatthe textrepresentsnothing ot herthanitself and thatits story isalways itsownstory,it sdiscoursethediscourseofitself.Anditispreciselyto thisextentthattherecanbeamyt hof thetex!.J Butthetextthatrecountsitsownstoryrecount sanunfinishedstory;it recountsitinterruptedanditessentiall yinterrupt sitsownrecitation.The textinterrupts itself at the pointwhere itsharesitsel f out-at every moment , toyou,from himor her toyou,to me,tothem.Ina sense,it is the sharing ofmyt h.Itiscommunit yexchanginganddistributingitsmyth.Nothi ng couldresemblemoreclosel yourmythofthefoundationandcommunion ofatribe,orapeople,indeedofhumanit y.Andyet ,thisisnotwhatit is.Itisnotthe ori gi nal scene of our communion.This docsnotmeanthat thereisnotheater-as thoughthere couldbeliterature withouttheater.But theater,here,nolongermeansthesceneofrepresentation:itmeansthe extremeedgeofthisscene,thedividinglinewheresingularbeingsarc exposedtooneanot her. 660il, t YTHt NTERRUPTED Whatissharedonthisextremeanddiffieultlimitisnotcommuni not completedidenti ty of allin one,nor any ki nd of completedWhat IS sharedthereforeis notthe annulmentof shari ng.but shari ng andconsequent ly everyone'snon ident ity,each one'snonidcnt itytohimsel; and. too.thers,andthenon ident ityoftheworktoitsel f,andfi nall ythe nomdentuyof li teraturetoliterat ureitself. Thus,the text its own story,whenitrecounlSit unfi nished and .whenIt.mterruPIS.,tself- andwhenitgoesontorecountIhisinter: ru ptlon,butInmterru ptsitselfagai n- itisbecauseithasastake anend,and .apri nciplebeyonditself.Inonesense,literatureonly c.omesfr:omliterature.andreturnstoit.Butinanot her sense- which Interfereswiththefi rstinsuchawaythat.wit h eachint erference IS mythIha.tis text,or thewrit ing,stemsonl yfromsIngul arrelat ionshipbetweensingularbei ngs(t heyarccall ed,orweha call edthemupth'.ve atIS POlOt ,men,gods.andalsoanimals'butonceagain arcnam.es).T.hetextstemsfrom.oris;hisrelationship; rendersIt s ? ntoloSlcal :em: asbei ng incommonis (the) being (of) literature.ThiS docsnotImpl y abemg of literature:itis nei ther anarrative nor a theoretical fi cti on. On the contrary,whatthis mcans is thmlit erature, atleastfromthe. momentweunderstandthiswordastheinterrupt ionor myth:asbemg(asessence,ifyouwill ,oragain ,astra nscendental conslltutlon) .thecommonexposureof singularbei ngs.their compearance. Themostsoli tarywriterswri tesonlyfortheot her.(Anyonewhowrites for th.esame,for hi mself,or fortheanonymity of the crowdis notawrit er.) ItIS notbecausethereisliteraturethatthereiscommunity.Onecould evensay,nodoubt ,thatitisbecausethereisli terat urethatthereisthe of communi.onandby extensionthemyt h ofli terary communion.In thiS hterat urecorrespondi ngtothegreatmoderninterruption .myth engenderedit sownmyth.Butnowthismythintum mterrupt.mgItSelf.Andtheinterruptionrevealsthatitisbecausethere IS thatthereisli terat ure:literatureinscribesbeing-in-common, bemgforOthersandthroughothers .....Itinscribesusasexposedtoone anOt.herandtoourrespccth'edeathsinwhichwereachoneanot her- in tothelimit - mut uall y.Toreachoneanot her- inpassingtothe It mll- IS nottocommune,whichistoaccedetoanothertotalbodywhere melt stogether.Buttoreachoneanot her,totouchoneanother, IS totouchthelimitwherebeingitself,wherebeing-in-commonconceals usonefromtheother,and,inconceal ingus,inwithdrawingusfromthe otherbeforetheother,exposesustohimorher. It. isab.irt h:weneverstopbei ngbornintocommunit y.Itisdeaf h-butIfoneISpermittedtosay so,itisnotatragicdeath,orelse,ifitis moreaccuratetosayitthi sway,itisnotmyt hicdeat h,ordeat hfollowed MYTHI NTERRUPTED067 b 'aresurret: ti on,orthedeat hthatplungesintoapureabyss:itisdeath )sharingandasexposure.Itisnotmurder- itisnotdeathasext ermi-. at ion- anditisnOIdeathaswork .nomorethanitisthenay-saylOg '\nbellishmentof death;rather,itisdeat hastheun worki ngthatunitesus itinterruptsourcommuni cati onandourcommunion. Itisbecausethereisthis,thisunworki ngthatsharesoutourbei ng-in-common,thatthereis" li terature."Thatistosay,theindefi nitely repeated andindefi nitelysuspendedgestureoftouchingthelimit ,ofindicatingit andinscribing it , but wit hoU