ankersmit.x

8/2/2019 ankersmit.x

1/23

History and Theory 51 (February 2012), 84-106 Wesleyan University 2012 ISSN: 0018-2656

REVIEW ARTICLE

ThE dIALECTICS oF JAmESoNS dIALECTICS

Valencesofthe Dialectic. By Freric Jaesn. Lnn: Vers, 2009. Pp. 624.

Always istricize!1ABSTRACT

Tis review essay attepts t unerstan te bk uner review against te backgrun f

Jaesns previus writings. Failing t s wul invite isunerstaning since tere

are few cnteprary terists wse writing frs s uc f a unity. Jaesns bk

can be ivie int tree parts. Te first an st iprtant part eals wit ialectics, te

secn wit plitics, an te tir wit pilspy f istry. In te first part Jaesn

argues tat ialectics best captures ur relatinsip t te scicultural an istrical

wrl we are living in. Te secn part akes clear tat Jaesn is nt prepare t water

wn is wn marxist plitics in rer t spare te liberal sensibilities f is plitical

ppnents. In te tir part Jaesn evelps is wn pilspy f istry, ainly in a

ialgue wit Riceur. dialectics is is ain weapn in is iscussin wit Riceur, an itbeces clear tat te Spinzis f ialectics allws fr a better unerstaning f istry

an f istrical writing tan es Riceurs penenlgical apprac. Te bk is an

ipressive testiny t te pwers f ialectical tugt an t its inispensability fr a

prper grasp f istrical writing.

Keywords: Freric Jaesn, Paul Riceur, martin heiegger, Jacques derria, hegelian-is, marxis, ialectics, pilspy f istry

I. INTRodUCTIoN

Jaesn was brn in 1934 in Clevelan, oi. he stuie Frenc an Geran

at haverfr Cllege in te early 1950s an at several universities in France an

Gerany fr 1954 t 1957. he tk is mA at Yale were e stuie uner te

supervisin f Eric Auerbac. his Pd tesis n Sartre was publise in 1961

as Sartre: the Origins of a Style. In is tesis, Jaesn use Sartres wrk treflect n te relatinsip between fr an cntenta tee tat wul ccupy

i trugut is intellectual career.2 Plitics is absent fr te bk, even

tug it was s very prinently present in Sartres wn oeuvre. Jaesnsinterest in pliticsan marxisnly cae witMarxism and Form (1971).3

1. Freric Jaesn, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Lnn:Rutlege, 1981), 9.

2. Jaesn iscusse it as recently as 2007. See Freric Jaesn, The Modernist Papers (Lnnan New Yrk: Vers, 2007), xiv.

3. Freric Jaesn,Marxism and Form (Princetn: Princetn University Press, 1971).


2/23

The dialecTics of Jamesons dialecTics 85

As te bk title suggests, Jaesn aintaine is epasis n atters f fr

r styleas exeplifie by te wrk f a nuber f (ne-)marxist autrs,

suc as Arn, Benjain, marcuse, Blc, an Lukcsbut tis tie wit a

specific fcus n w style r fr relates t (marxist) plitics.4 It is Jaesns

first penly plitical bkgenerally recgnize as suc5an it testifies t tecntinuity between is interest in issues f fr an style, n te ne an, an

is marxist plitics, n te ter.

Jaesn believe marxis t be te best reey fr te srtcings f

Angl-Aerican (plitical) pilspy, but ere t, tis is abve all a atter f

style. Fr, as Jaesn argues, te style f Angl-Aerican (plitical) pilspy

necessarily blins it t scietys ain prbles, an it is, terefre, sui generiscnservative: te et f suc tinking, in its varius frs an guises, cn-

sists in separating reality int airtigt cpnents, carefully istinguising te

plitical fr te ecnic, te legal fr te plitical, te scilgical frte istrical, so that the full implications of any given problem can never comeinto view (y italics).6

obviusly, tis arguent ces clse t te failiar ne-marxist arguent

against liberal plitical pilspy as being te victi f a albierter Vernunft

(alve Reasn) because Reasn is use slely fr tinking abut wat te best

eans are fr acieving certain gals, wereas tese scial an plitical gals

teselves are believe t be beyn te scpe f ratinal arguent. Tese

gals always cncern te whole f te sciplitical rer, an eac attept t

cnceptualize tis rer wul inevitably result, accring t tese liberal pliti-cal pilspers, in ile, etapysical speculatin. Ne-marxists see tis as a

sure sign f te intellectual bankruptcy f liberal plitical reasn. In wat kin f

plitical rer are we living if we are frbien t cnceptualize it as a whole?An wy sul reasn be incapable f eaningfully iscussing te prs an

cns f te plitical rer as a wle? Tey agree, terefre, wit hegels as

Ware ist as Ganze (te trut is te wle) an, ence, tat we can get t te

basic truts abut ur plitical rer nly n te cnitin tat we nt esitate

t ake use f te ntin f tat rers ttality.7

Tis is surely ne f te re pwerful (ialectical) arguents against liberal

plitical pilspy, an it nee nt be surprising, terefre, tat Jaesn was

never willing t abann tis iea f te scial wle r f its ttality. Even

tug Luis Altusser (ne f Jaesns ain marxist eres) repeate ver

an ver again tat twentiet-century ttalitarianis a iscreite frever

te ntin f ttality, Jaesn reaine cnvince tat surrenering te ntin

4. Te issue returns in te bk uner review. See 22ff.

5. Te bk as been escribe as te Ur-text fr te renaissance f marxist criticis in te US

acaey trugut te 1970s. See Sean her, Fredric Jameson: Marxism, Hermeneutics, Post-modernism (Cabrige, UK: Cabrige University Press, 1998), 13.

6. Qute in ibid., 15.7. As Freerick Beiser argues, te ntin f te wle r ttality is an inispensable cpnent

f ialectics. Te ain iea is tat, in ialectics, we cannt ve n fr n single ting is bt

F an nt-F at te sae tie t Reality as a wle cannt be bt F an nt-F at te sae tie.

Fr tis tensin all ialectics arises. An, bviusly, all tis is pssible nly n te cnitin tat

we can ake use f te ntin f Reality as a wle. See Freeric C. Beiser,Hegel (New Yrk anLnn: Rutlege, 2005), 162.


3/23

frank ankersmit86

wul aunt t te easculatin f all f plitical pilspy.8 here we can

nly agree wit Jaesn.9 Fr it is a non sequitur tat tinking te ttality neces-sarily invitespolitical ttalitarianis. It is rater te ter way arun: respnsi-ble plitical tugt abut te ttality f ur scial-plitical rer will ar us all

te better against any future attepts t use it fr ttalitarian purpses, wereasreving it fr ur plitical vcabulary will blin us t any suc treats.

JaesnsLate Marxism: Adorno, or, the Persistence of the Dialectic f 1990can be seen as a cntinuatin f is Marxism and Form.10 Arns negativeialectics is presente ere as te ain an st successful instruent against

te wrkings f liberal reificatinbest unerst as a freezing f te ialec-

tics f istry in an everlasting present11an f cificatin. Ci-

ficatin results fr seeing in ney te instruent fr aking everyting

pructs, labr, services, science, art, culture, an s ncensurable wit

everyting else. If everyting is censurable wit everyting else, ntingreally new can ever ce int being. Fr newness is by efinitin incensu-rable wit wat exists. S cificatin as a natural affinity wit reificatin

an vice versa. Bt freeze tie, put ialectics t a stanstill, an result in watmarcuse caracterize as ne-iensinal an (see nte 11). By its refusal t

tink te wle, Angl-Aerican pilspy is, in fact, te ielgy f a sciety

taking reificatin an cificatin as its tw secular gs. Tis, ten, is wy

we nee te crwbar f ialectics if we wis t be able t tink te past an te

future again.

As if t reress an verepasis n atters f fr an style, Jaesn apreviusly criticize fraliss tenency t cut cpletely trug te ties

between fr an cntent in is The Prison-house of Language: A CriticalAccount of Structuralism and Russian Formalism f 1972.12 In tis wrk, Jae-sn insists tat te interest in fr, wever recenable it ay be as suc,

sul never allw us t abann cntextualizatin. We sul never frget

8. Fr an accunt f Jaesns iscussin wit Altusser abut te iea f ttality, see Aa

Carles Rberts, Fredric Jameson (Lnn an New Yrk: Rutlege, 2000), 15-20, an her,Fredric Jameson, 60-62. one re cnteprary critic f te ntin f ttality is Jean-Franis

Lytar, w Jaesn qutes: let us wage war n ttality (Jaesn, Valences, 210).9. Jaesn als appeals t te vintage marxist arguent linking te ntin f ttality t praxis(see Jaesn, Valences,10, 50ff.; see als her, Fredric Jameson, 94ff.). Te nature f existingsciplitical reality (its ttality) will reveal itself t us nly wen we try t cange it (praxis)

just as te nature f arble will reveal itself t te sculptr nly wen e r se akes a sculpture

ut f it. Inversely, witut a ntin f ttality, praxis is ailess. Te arguent akes sense,

tug, aittely, in Jaesns case it is ar t see wat tis appeal t practice ces wn t

in practice.

10. Freric Jaesn,Late Marxism: Adorno, or, the Persistence of the Dialectic (Lnn: Vers,1990).

11. Tis, f curse, was te ain tesis in herbert marcuses iensely successful an influ-

ential, One-Dimensional Man (Bstn: Beacn Press, 1964). Jaesn rarely refers t marcuse,

wever, prbably because wereas marcuses analysis f esire (as in isEros and Civilization) isstill basically Freuian, Jaesn prefers an apprac la Lacan an/r deleuze. Fr Freu, esire

is still an irratinal, aistrical given, wereas Lacan an deleuze istricize it (an pleasure). As

Jaesn fausly urge: always istricize! (tese are te tw triupant first wrs f ThePolitical Unconscious).

12. Freric Jaesn, The Prison-house of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism andRussian Formalism (Princetn: Princetn University Press, 1972).


4/23


abut te texts istrical cntext as it annunces itself in te texts cntent. Tis

bk efines Jaesns psitin wit regar t te structuralis f Lvi-Strauss,

Jakbsn, an Bartes13 an can best be suarize in ters f te ifference

between ialectics an structuralist tugt. Bt see te wrl, r te text, in

ters f ppsitins. But wereas structuralis freezes ppsitin in ters fa syste f aistrical, binary ppsitins, ialectics carefully avis any suc

fixatinjust tink f te ialectical tria f negatin, persistence, an Aufe-

bung. Structuralis is a truncate ialectics.

In te late 1980s an 1990s Jaesns tugt ve in new irectins.

Befre ten te pructs f ig culture were te self-evient subject atter

f is writings. But nw fil, vie, te visual arts, an arcitecture are als

eagerly explre fr teir cultural an (ien) plitical eanings. Tis is wat

was at stake in Signatures of the Visible (1990) an in The Geopolitical Aesthetic:

Cinema and Space in the World System (1992).14

At te sae tie te tee futpianisalreay aresse in te tw vlues fThe Ideologies of Theoryessays (1988)15becae ever re prinent. Tis resulte in The Seeds ofTime (1994) an Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia andOther Science Fictions (2005), were Jaesn presente utpian els f tefuture by eplying marxist speculatins n te classless sciety an science

fictin as well.16

Tis cbinatin f all-encpassing analyses f cnteprary art an

culture, bt ig an lw, wit te plitical agena f utpianis establise

Jaesns reputatin as a cultural critic. Inee, in bt te blurb n te bkuner review ere an n The Modernist Papers f 2007,17 Clin macCabe car-acterizes Freric Jaesn as prbably te st iprtant cultural critic writing

in Englis tay.18 If ne peruses te any tings tat ave recently been sai

an written abut Jaesn, tere sees t be near unanius agreeent tat e

sul be seen priarily as a cultural critic. Tis is wy Jaesn is nw ften

erale as ne f ur greatest cnteprary sages, as ur present cunterpart t

te Carlyles, Bauelaires, Nietzsces, Arnls, Benjains, Elits, an Trillings f

a reter an re recent past, by suc igly iprtant an influential autrs as

Terry Eagletn, dinick LaCapra, an hayen Wite. Jaesn as bece ne

f te greatest naes in te reflectin n cnteprary culture, if nt te greatest.

13. Jaesn criticizes Bartes fr is unrepenting surrener t bourgeois juissance.14. Freric Jaesn, Signatures of the Visible (Lnn an New Yrk: Rutlege, 1990); idem,

The Geopolitical Aesthetic: Cinema and Space in the World System (Blingtn an Inianaplis:Inianaplis University Press, 1992).

15. Freric Jaesn, The Ideologies of Theory, 2 vls. (minneaplis: University f minnestaPress, 1988).

16. Freric Jaesn, The Seeds of Time (New Yrk: Clubia University Press, 1994); idem,Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions (Lnn anNew Yrk: Vers, 2005).

17. Freric Jaesn, The Modernist Papers (Lnn an New Yrk: Vers, 2007).18. It will nee n eluciatin tat (ne-)marxis is te alst natural pint f eparture fr

alst all cultural criticis. See fr tis Ricar Wlin, The Terms of Cultural Criticism: The Frank-furt School, Existentialism, Poststructuralism (New Yrk: Clubia University Press, 1992), xv.


5/23

frank ankersmit88

II. mAIN ThEmES

hwever successful te bks I ave entine ay ave been, Jaesn is

best knwn fr tw ters: The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a SociallySymbolic Act, in wic e evelps is wn bran f marxist ereneutics, anPostmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, wic ffers a marxistinterpretatin f psternis. As will be clear by nw, Jaesn is a ialecti-

cal tinker. In rer t recgnize wat tis ust ean fr is ereneutics we

sul recall, abve all, tat ialectics is basically nist an terefre is pecu-

liar ang all Western pilspies since descartes an Kant in tat it leaves

n r fr te subject/bject split r any variants f it. Te hegelian ialectic

inerite tis fr Spinzas ctrine f te one Substance, cprising witin

itself bt subject an bject.19 dialectics is tus best seen as te istricizatin

f Spinzist nist ratinalis.

As her sws, tree cnsequences fllw fr tis. First, instea f accept-

ing te well-knwn epistelgical relatinsip between istrian r reaer n

te ne an, an se islate cultural artifact we ave inerite fr te past,

n te ter, as is fraewrk, te ialectician will prefer t see te interpreta-

tin f te past, r f te text, as te prcess f a cntinuus mediation betweenpast an present an in wic bt participate ex aequo.20 In ialectics tere aren insuruntable epistelgical gaps r fixe ierarcies between subject an

bjecttis is, again, Spinzas legacy t ialectics. Interpretatin ten beces

an allegry f te cnfrntatin between tw scial frs, naely, past an pre-

sent. Secn, because f tis, in all interpretatin te past reains an active agent

in its wn rigt, s t speak. Tis is te parax f ialectics: precisely by pulling

te past clser t usby ing away wit te epistelgical barrier between

subject an bjectwe grant t it a pwer an presence fr wic epistelgy

leaves n r at all. Tir, because ialectics cprises te past, te present,

an te future, te future ust als be incrprate in all tis. or, as Jaesn

puts it iself, we ust allw fr: te sense f a ereneutic relatinsip t te

past wic is able t grasp its wn present istry nly n cnitin it anages

t keep te iea f te future, an f raical an utpian transfratin alive.21

Tis, ten, gives us te utpian ipulse in Jaesns tugt.

19. See Beiser,Hegel, 61-65 an Beisers qute n 46-47 fr hegel iself in is writings n teistry f pilspy: wen ne begins t pilspize ne ust be first a Spinzist. Te sul ust

bate itself in te aeter f te single substance, in wic everyting ne as el ear is suberge.

See als Carles Taylr,Hegel (Cabrige, UK: Cabrige University Press, 1977), 99, 227.

20. As Wite insists, tis as iplicatins fr w t cnceive f ielgy. Ielgy cannt befrae witin te reassuring, epistelgical science/trut ppsitin: ielgy is nt, fr Jae-

sn, a lie, a eceptin, r a istrtin f a perceivable reality but rater an attept t ce t ters

wit an t transcen te unbearable relatinsips f scial life. See hayen Wite, Jaesns

Reeptin f Narrative, in idem, The Content of the Form (Baltire: Jns hpkins UniversityPress, 1987), 154.

21. her, Fredric Jameson, 42.


6/23


Next, te questin arises w t peratinalize r cnceptualize tis ialec-

tical eiatin between istrical reality in its subjectivist an bjectivist

anifestatins. Tis is were Lacan ces in. Fr te Lacanian Real is exactly

te sae ile between bjectifie an subjectifie reality tat reality is witin

ialectical tugt. S Jaesn nw psits a parallel between te Lacanian triaf 1) iaginatin, 2) te syblic rer, an 3) te Real an te ereneutic

tria f 1) te text, 2) sciety, an 3) istry. It fllws fr tis scea tat

istry sul be equate t te Lacanian Real; tis can prperly be sai t be ur

plitical uncnscius since, just like te uncnscius, istry is always present

but neverteless successfully resists ever being fully capture. As her puts it:

istry is represse in cultural texts an perates as a textual uncnscius.22

Tis as, in its turn, cnsequences fr w t tink abut narrative. Fr wat is

re natural tan t tie ialectics an narrative firly tgeter? Is ialectics, in

te en, nt te narrative f te self-unfling f spirit (Geist) were we ustnever fall int te trap f seeing te intrinsically ialectical prcess f narrativiza-

tin as slely a ting f te in? Fr ialectics typically suttles between wat

in te Cartesian, epistelgical traitin is calle in an reality. It fllws

tat narrative is just as uc a ting f te in as it is f reality: again, it medi-ates between te past itself an istrical tugt.23 or, as epistelgists usingteir bizarre vcabulary wul be cpelle t caracterize tis state f affairs:

narrative is bt in te past itselfanda categry f te uan in. In tis wayte ntin f narrative can be sai t be a syblizatin f wat ur ereneuti-

cal unerstaning f te past (an f te text) gives us access t. S te bkstitleThe Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Actis stapprpriate. In fact, it is te srtest pssible suary f te bk. Finally,

Jaesn illustrates is marxist ereneutics wit an elabrate iscussin f

tree nvelistsBalzac, Gissing, an Cnra. N tery witut exaples!

Taking int accunt all f tis, ne can nly be eeply ipresse by Jaesns

success in weaving tgeter all tis witin ne cerent wle. Tis bk truly

is a tour de force.The Political Unconscious is prbably Jaesns st ifficult bk. Te

bk n psternis is far re accessible. It grew ut f a uc-iscusse

essay n psternis in te New Left Review f 1984 tat is inclue in tebk. As beves a marxist, Jaesn relates te eergence f psternis

t canges in te ecny. he was ne f te first t see w te victry f te

ielgy f te arket, f neliberalis, f miltn Frieans raicalis, f

te isantling f te welfare state by Reagan an Tatcer resulte in an ec-

nic syste tat is basically ifferent fr te ne we a. As early as 1991 e

bserve te Lefts elplessness wit regar t neliberalis: te surrener t

22.Ibid., 55; see als Rberts, Fredric Jameson, 61-68.23. Wen iscussing narrative, her agrees wit Ry Baskars criticis tat Jaesn is guilty

f te episteic fallacy an fails t give a cnvincing arguent in favr f an inepenently exist-

ing istrical reality. See her, Fredric Jameson, 65ff. But te attept t give suc an arguentwul autatically require abanning ialectics, an tis ne cannt reasnably ean f se-

ne w, like Jaesn, penly ebraces it.


7/23


8/23


sul be unerst priarily in a etaprical sense. Tie is suggestive f

cange, an we can nly prperly appreciate it if we keep in in te ifferent

pases f te prcess f cange: f wat a ting was (an is nw n lnger), f

wat it is nw, an f wat it ay bece in te future. Tis gives t te wrl a

(tepral) ept cprising a tangible an real present apart fr a past tat wecan nly remember. Tat is ties chiaroscuro. Space (an we ust tink ere ftw-iensinal space), wever, lacks suc ept an ffers us nly a surface.

Tie is etaprical r syneccical; space is etnyical. Tie fcuses n

ientity an space n ifference. In te tie-el eanings are rganize as

sets f internal relatinsips; in te space-el we ave nly external relatin-

sips s tat eanings bece like ites n a ap tat are nly externally (tat

is, spatially) relate t eac ter. hence ving fr te tie- t te space-

el, fr ernis t psternis, invlves a lss f eaning an f

eanings capacity t rganize te wrl fr us; it is terefre n less inuslytan crrectly escribe as a breakwn in te signifying cain.27

Alst everyting tat we ave learne since Jaesn t assciate wit

psternis can be erive fr tis sift fr tie t space; tink f

Lytars tesis f te excange f etanarratives cprising all f te past fr

psternist s-calle little narratives tat never excee te rizn f te

present. hence, te lss f istricity in psternis. hence, te excange

f ernist parania fr psternist scizprenia (deleuze), tat is,

te sift fr weaving te web f eanings as clsely tgeter as pssible, t

unraveling tat web int separate treas f eaning. hence, te preinancef science ver istry. hence, te waning f affect, since wat affects us

will affect nw at best just a few f tese iniviual treas f eaning but n

lnger te web f eaning as a wle. hence, te excange f pary fr

pasticewic is, in fact, pary rbbe f its eaning. hence, psternist

arcitectures playfully cbining classical r barque arcitectural retric wit

tat f ernisfr tese styles f te past ave nw lst teir riginal ean-

ing an terewit teir innate resistance t qutatin in psternist arcitec-

ture. hence, psterniss ne plus ultra f te very isslutin f te categryf eaning itself, as exeplifie by Baurillars tery f te simulacrum.

S te resurrectin f an ecnic state f nature in ur ern wrl, wic

is avcate by neliberalis t te present ay, as a te st entus

cnsequences. All te re ay ne be surprise by Jaesns relatively psi-

tive appraisal f pstern arcitecture, art, an culture.28 Ten again, peraps

we sul we see is recent nuental bk n literary ernis29ealing

wit Bauelaire, Ribau, mallar, Kafka, Jyce, Prust an tersas a, fr

i, welce war bat in te wrk f autrs wse superirity t pstern

autrs e as never really ubte. mrever, es Jaesn nt bserve in A

27. In te bk uner review Jaesn as t te analysis f space an tie, as given in te bk

n psternis, by explaining w tey can be relate t eac ter ialectically. See 66-70.

28. [A]s far as taste is cncerne (an as reaers f te preceing capters will ave bece

aware), culturally I write as a relatively entusiastic cnsuer f psternis. See Jaesn,

Postmodernism, 298.29. Jaesn, The Modernist Papers.


9/23

frank ankersmit92

Singular Modernity a revival f te cncept f ernityapparently wit isapprval?30 S it sees.

Centing n Jaesns intellectual acieveent, her bserves:

[I]n te last tirty years e as pruce a by f wrk tat cbines a friable egree

f pilspical breat, plitical integrity an intellectual rigur. his great pilspi-calliterary els reain Sartre, Lukcs an Arn, but e is equally at e engaging

wit figures suc as Lacan, derria an Baurillar. mrever, e presents an astnising

range f cultural analysis fr ig literature t science fictin, fr ppular usic,

fil an vie t painting, sculpture an arcitecture. Jaesn will slip fr a iscussin

f heiegger t pp art an hllyw fil wit an ease tat is at nce breattaking an

unsettling.31

one can nly agree: It is ar t cnceive f a cnteprary tinker wit greater

eruitin, a better grasp f te prfunest pilspical an literary teries,32

r a re riginal an penetrating insigt int te peculiarities f ur cntep-rary pstern wrl tan Freric Jaesn. his wrk testifies t a wealt f

learning an a scpe f interest tat are unparallele by any ter cnteprary

sclar. he sees t ave rea just abut everyting an t ave a re secure

grasp n all f it tan anyby else. his reputatin an staning in te acaeic

wrl are in agreeent wit tis. In 2008 e receive te danis hlberg Prize

a kin f Nbel Prize fr te uanities.

But tis sul nt ake us frget tat tis s very ipressive euvre is nt

witut its weaknesses, t. Tere is, in te first place, te infaus Jaes-

nian style (duglas Kellner33), wic, unfrtunately, as prve t be a fatal

stubling blck fr any reaers wising t rient teselves in Jaesns

writings (an s it was wit e fr quite se tie). his bks belng t te

st ifficult an eaning texts written by cnteprary terists. Tis is

nt erely a atter f basically clear tugts being unclearly expresse (tink

f Kants r dnal davisns style f writing), but rater te re raatic

variant f unclear tugts tat are expresse unclearly. Wen tis ccurs, rea-

ing inevitably beces guesswrk. Tug in all fairness it sul be ae

rigt away tat tere is an iense ifference between te trtuus an inee

ipenetrable prse f, say, te first capters fThe Political Unconscious an teurbane, relaxe, an easyging style f, fr exaple, te ne-unre-page-lng

cnclusin t te psternis bk.

Jaesn is aware f te prble. he recalls tat after te publicatin fThePrison-house of Language e receive tw sets f letters: ne praising i frefening structuralis an ne fr attacking it.34 mst autrs wul be wrrie

by suc a cntraictry receptin f teir wrk an cnclue tat tey sul try

30. See te intructin an cnclusin t Freric Jaesn, A Singular Modernity: Essay on theOntology of the Present(Lnn an New Yrk: Vers, 2002).

31. her, Fredric Jameson, 6.32. Tink, fr exaple, f Jaesns abslutely brilliant expsitin f heieggers cnceptin f

representatin. See Jaesn, Singular Modernity, 45-54. Tis is Jaesn at is very best were effers t is reaers seting tat nly e can give te.

33. duglas Kellner, Fredric Jameson, ttp://www.uta.eu/ua/illuinatins/kell19.t(accesse Nveber 28, 2011).

34. Jaesn, Postmodernism, 297.


10/23


t write just a little bit re clearly in te futurebut tat was nt Jaesns

reactin. his efense is tat yu inevitably get ifficult prse if yu eal wit te

kin f ifficult tpics e typically aresses.35 But tis is te srt f arguent

tat says tat te escriptin f seting blue sul be blue itselfan tat

will cnvince few peple.A better explanatin (an partial excuse fr Jaesns arcane prse) wul,

in y view, be an appeal t is ebrace f ialectics. In ialectical arguent

cncepts are always in transitin, an necessarily s because f teir cntinuus

suttling between wat epistelgists like t refer t as language an real-

ity. Language an te cncepts we use are in peranent flux in ialectical an

istrical tugttink f Nietzsces slgan efinierbar ist nur was keine

Gescicte at (ne can nly efine tings tat ave n istry). obviusly,

tis akes istrical ebate vague an iprecise an ialectical arguent if-

ficult t nail wn; in fact, if yu fin tis intlerable yu a better stp reaingistry (an ialectical texts) at all.36 It als fllws tat clear an unabiguus

prse will be seen fr te perspective f te ialectician as a sure sign f te

reificatin f language, f a fixatin n te relatinsip between language an

te wrl tat ialectics sul always avi. As Jaesn puts it: I believe tat

tery is t be graspe as te perpetual an ipssible attept t ereify te lan-

guage f tugt, an t preept all te systes an ielgies wic inevitably

result fr te establisent f tis r tat fixe terinlgy (9).

But tere are re bstacles fr te Jaesn reaer. Tere is te prlixity f

is texts ften bscuring te earcatin between te iprtant an wat is ereetail, te iense size f st f is bks, an te fact tat tey are alst all

cllectins f previusly publise essays. Jaesn iself justifies is prefer-

ence fr te article r essay wit te arguent tat in te cnteprary intellectu-

al wrl bks ave bece a less apprpriate veicle fr teretical reflectin.

Peraps. Neverteless, it cannt be ubte tat prlific writers suc as Jaesn

wul teir auience a st welce service by nw an ten publising a

ngrap explaining were tey presently are n teir intellectual jurney. Te

prble is furter aggravate by te fact tat, as far as I can see, tere as been

little evelpent in Jaesns tugt: e sees t l te sae teries nw

tat e argue fr in te 1970s (tug, f curse, tese teries are applie t

ever new tpics). Tere is nting wrng wit tisn ubt abut tat!but it

es reinfrce te reaers ipressin f aving been trwn int a sea f texts

witut cpass r estinatin, an left t try t fin nes way in it.

Finally, since all f Jaesns writings are uncprisingly teretical, ne

seties wners weter s uc tery igt nt be cunterpructive in

te en. Tere is a real wrl utsie tery, after all, in wic a marxist te-

rist, prbably re tan any ter, igt wis t intervene. d we nt expect te

marxist terist t fcus re tan any ter n changing te wrl rater tann understanding it? I wul agree terefre wit Rrtys laent tat tere islittle sign in Jaesns euvre f is being aware f tis. Inee, te secn an

35. Rberts, Fredric Jameson, 6.36. In recent ecaes tere as been uc interest in s-calle fuzzy tinkingwic es

inee fill a lacuna in cnteprary pilspy.


11/23

frank ankersmit94

tir parts f Rrtys Achieving Our Country are ne cntinuus, subterraneanpilippic against Jaesns unrestraine lust fr tery an abstractin. Fr tis

is, accring t Rrty, wat kille te Aerican cultural Left, an ere Jaesn

is is priary target:

[T]e ifference between tis resiual Left an te acaeic Left is te ifference

between peple w rea bks like Tas Gegegans Which Side Are You On?abrilliant explanatin f w unins get bustean peple w rea Jaesns Post-modernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Te latter is an equally brilliantbk, but it perates n a level f abstractin t ig t encurage any particular plitical

initiative. After reaing Gegegan, yu ave views n se f te tings wic nee t

be ne. After reaing Jaesn, yu ave views n practically everyting except n wat

nees t be ne.37

We can be sure tat Rrty as n a priori bias against Jaesns plitical cn-

ceptins. on te cntrary, e can be expecte t be fully pen t all tat Jaesntinks an writes, an nt t be far reve fr i n te plitical spectru,

s suc criticis sul nt be isisse ut f an.

III. dIALECTICS

Against te backgrun f te freging we can pencil in te ain cnturs f

te bk uner review. Te bk is uge, 620 pages, ver 300,000 wrs; again,

te bk is a cllectin f essays publise between 1993 an 2009 (tug ne

f te is fr 1981). It is te first part f a trilgy an will be fllwe by a

bk n hegels Phenomenology of Spiritan ne n marxs Capital. Unfrtu-nately, tere is n intructin r cnclusin suggesting w tese tree bks

will be relate r w t apprac tis ne.38 But peraps suc an eluciatin

wul nly state te bvius an terefre be superfluus.

Wen ealing wit ialectics Jaesn begins by istinguising ang 1) te

ialectics 2) ialectics, an 3) te ajective ialectical. Jaesn efines

te ialectics as te subsuptin f all varieties f ialectical tinking uner

a single pilspical syste, an prbably, in te prcess, t affir tat tis

syste is te trut. An ultiately te nly viable pilspy (page 5; Jae-

sn ges n t a tat tis is w e wul lk at ialectics iself). S te

strategy f istinguising between 1) n te an an 2) an 3) n te ter is

t suggest tat tere are re ialectics in te wrl tan just te ialectic an

tat anyne wising t participate successfully in te cnteprary acaeic

37. Ricar Rrty,Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America (Ca-brige, mA: harvar University Press, 1998), 78. I wul like t tank Jn Wite fr aving rawn

y attentin t Rrtys bk. hwever, Jaesn igt ave a tugt-prvking rejiner t Rrtys

criticis: wat appens is tat te re pwerful te visin f se increasingly ttal syste r

lgicte Fucault f te prisns bk is an exaplete re pwerless te reaer ces t feel.

Insfar as te terist wins, terefre, by cnstructing an increasingly clse an terrifying acine,t tat very egree e lses, since te critical capacity f is wrk is tereby paralyze. . . (Jaesn,

Postmodernism, 5). Tus Jaesn igt reply tat it is precisely te ipssibility f basing pliticalactin n is wrk tat prves w rigt e is. It is a strng arguent, but wever uses it wins a

pyrric victry ver is ppnent.

38. See 69, nte 68 fr a brief cent n w te bk relates t te frtcing nes n

hegels Phenomenology an n marx.


12/23


wrl ust ave installe te ialectics prgra n is intellectual PC. Yu

ave ialectics, fr exaple, in Kants transcenental ialectics, in Nietzsce, in

Bergsn, in Wittgensteins Philosophical Investigations, in deleuze, an s n.All tese pilspers ialectics in ne way r anter, but witut neces-

sarily subscribing t hegelian r marxist ialectics. Even liberal pilsperswrk wit ialectics: just tink f manevilles private vice, public virtue r

f Sits invisible an (287). Jaesn iscusses tw specific traitins at

lengt in tis cntext: structuralis an ecnstructivis.

As we all knw, structuralis requires us t lk at culture in ters f binary

ces were eac eleent f te ce is te ters ppsite, even tug fr

eac eleent te presence f te ter is te cnitin fr its wn existence.

Self-eviently tis ust rein us f te rle playe by negatin in ialectics.

It is t tis extent tat structuralis can, inee, be sai t be ialectical. Te

ifference is, tug, tat in structuralis negatin es nt penetrate int tecpnents teselves tat are eac ters binary ppsitin. Tey wul

reain wat tey are if te negatin r ppsitin were taken away. As Jaesn

puts it, in structuralis eac ple f te specific ualis . . . is gverne by

istinct laws an ynaics, wic cannt be ae t apply t r t gvern te

ppsite ter (25). Tis is nt te case wit ialectics. Jaesn entins a fas-

cinating exaple: Fritz Langs fil Woman at the Window (1944). After seeingte fil te viewer es nt knw weter te fils ain caracter is a quiet,

kin, ecent, burgeis prfessr reaing tat e is a urerer r a urerer

reaing, in is everyay life, tat e is a quiet, kin, ecent, burgeis prfes-sr (57). Nw, if ne gets stuck in tis ilea, ten ne as nt unerst

te fil because tere wul siply be tw utually exclusive interpretatins,

wic is nt a atter f uc interest. Wat is f interest an wat te fil

wises t cnvey is tat a quiet, kin, ecent, burgeis prfessr can just as well

be a urerer. Tat is te scking essage f te fil tat nly ces acrss

if te tw ppsite pssibilities interpenetrate39 s tat te viewer is cnstantly

aware tat te prfessr ay be a urerer an te urerer a prfessr. Te

essage is tat te prfessr ay be a urerer an vice versa.40 Tis was surelya st apprpriate insigt at te tie tat te hlcaust was nearing its isal

cpletin! Only this is true dialectics. As Jaesn nicely suarizes: teecncealent f structuralist antinies tat is at te rt f practical r

teretical ileas can serve as a pwerful instruent f ielgical analysis

(as in ecnstructin), but it sul nt be cnfuse wit te re ynaic an

pructive act f setting te antiny itself in tin, tat is t say, revealing it

39. Tis is te prcess tat ialecticians call eiatin. As Jaesn qutes Arn: eia-

tin is terefre in hegel neveras any nuber f fateful isunerstanings since Kierkegaar

wul ave ita ipint between te extrees: rater eiatin takes place witin te extreesteselves: an tis is te raical feature f hegel wic is irrecncilable wit any erate r

intereiary psitin (56).

40. Tis als prvies us wit te el fr w t tink abut te relatinsip between base an

superstructure: we sul begin wit recgnizing teir ppsitinan ence recgnize teir relative

autny wit regar t eac terbut nly in rer t see tat teir ppsitin is te fuel fr te

acine f teir ialectical interactin (47ff.).


13/23

frank ankersmit96

t ave in reality been te fr f a cntraictin: fr it is te unasking f te

antiny as cntraictin wic cnstitutes ialectical tinking as suc (43).

Tis is precisely wy ialectics is s basic t all istrical tugt. Fr it is

te istrians ain task always t be aware f te ialectical prliferatin f

eaning, t see w eanings ay invite teir ppsites, r negatins, an trecgnize tat tis interplay f eanings ay never be brken ff n penalty f

reificatin (see te intructin) an wic is tantaunt t nt being a ist-

rian. Tere is n better exaple f tis tan hegels wn cunning f Reasn:

witin tis cntext it ust be bserve tat in wrl istry te actins f uan beings

ay seties ave results iffering cpletely fr wat tese uan beings a in

in r intene t acieve, an fr wat was irectly knwn an esire by te.

Inee, tese uan agents acieve teir gals; but seting re was brugt abut

by tis as well, tat certainly a its rts in teir actins, but nt in teir cnsciusness

an intentins.41

Intentinal eaning autatically pruces nnintene eaning, an tat

ay very well be its very ppsite r negatin. Cllingwian ereneutics an

its re recent variants, suc as tat prpse by Skinner r Bevir, is prttypi-

cally blin t tis ialectics f eaning. Aittely, it prpses a way f lking

at istry wse value nby wul wis t eny. Neverteless, if ne aspires

t being a true istrian tis can nly be te beginning, an te real istricalwrk will be ne nly n te trajectry f ialectical reflectin cing after it.

After Jaesns criticis f structuralis we ay wner weter e wul

cnsier pststructuralis in its derriian ecnstructivist garb an iprveent.Tis questin is nt easy t answer. Fr wen Jaesn iscusses derria e

fcuses n Glas an n Spectres de Marxence, n bks in wic derriaanalyzes hegel an marx an abut w Jaesn as very prnunce pin-

ins iself. Te result is tat it beces ar t iscern between 1) Jaesns

appraisal f ecnstructin an 2) Jaesns isagreeent wit derria ver

hegel an/r marx.42 obviusly, tese tw tings ust be carefully kept apart.

Peraps te clsest t an ex cathedra cent n derria an ecnstructin iste uncnceale relis wit wic Jaesn expatiates n derrias wn cnfes-

sin I nt knw w t tell stries (131)an were it beces clear tevery reaer tat tis necessarily puts derria utsie te wrl in wic ia-

lecticians, like Jaesn, live. Te Jaesn fThe Political Unconscious wulbe te first t stress tat ialectics is nting ter tan ne way f cifying

41. jener Zusaenang entlt nlic ies, ass in er Weltgescicte urc ie hanlungen

er menscen nc etwas aners beraupt erauske, als sie bezwecken un erreicen, als sie

unittelbar wissen un wllen. Sie vllbringen ir Interesse; aber es wir nc ein Ferneres ait

zustane gebract, ass auc innerlic arin liegt, aber as nict in ire Bewusstsein un irer

Absict lag. G. W. F. hegel, Vorlesungen ber die Philosophie der Weltgeschichte. Band I. DieVernunft in der Geschichte (haburg: Felix meiner Verlag, 1970), 88.

42. An aitinal prble is tat Jaesns text is ften regrettably unelpful ere. See, frexaple, 104, 105. It is clear tat Jaesn isagrees ere wit derrias interpretatin f hegels

ntin f Aufebung, but even after several rereaings f tese tw pages I ave been unable t

put y finger n wat exactly te isagreeent is abut. Tere is re clarity n 106 were derria

is accuse f reverting t te rater banal questin f weter hegel was a telgian rater tan a

pilsper. But, f curse, tis is f little elp if we wis t fin ut abut Jaesns appraisal f

ecnstructivis.


14/23


narrative, an tis sees t suggest tat, accring t Jaesn, at te en f te

ay, te ecnstructivist an te ialectician siply live in ifferent wrls. Nev-

erteless, in te lng capter n derria ainly fcusing n Spectres de Marx,Jaesn pts fr a strategy f peaceful cexistence wit ecnstructivis.43

But a clearly represse criticis seties siers trug Jaesnsexpsitin. Fr exaple, e bserves tat tere are ents f lwere guar

in derrias custary psture f a pilspy tat neiter affiret nr eny-

et an were Jaesn clearly prefers Rrty t derria (136). Siilarly, wen

derria criticizes marx fr attepting t unask specters wit te arguent tat

suc an attept is inevitably just ne re figt against specters fr te siple,

but ecisive, reasn tat specters nt exist, Jaesn respectfully bserves tat

te belief in specters is seties less arless tan teir nnexistence sees

t suggest (143ff.). Reining us f tis pssibility is clearly wat te marxist

ntin f ielgy as always been abut.Finally, in Spectres de Marx derria iscusses marxs pleic against

Stirneran we knw tis pleic t ave been a particularly bitter an vee-

ent ne since marx was painfully aware tat Stirner a been re successful

in exrcising te last specters f hegelian iealis tan e iself a been.

derria cente n tis: y wn feeling is tat marx is afrai f iself,

e bsessively pursues sene w is nt far fr being a perfect likeness f

iself, a brter, a uble, tus a iablical iage. A srt f pant f i-

self. Tat e wul like t istance fr iself, t istinguis fr iself:

t ppse (173). An ten Jaesn, tug alst contre coeur, ces upwit te inevitable rejiner: naely, tat tere is a g eal f ypcrisy inderrias Es-deutung f marx. Fr wat pilsper is, after all, re afrai

f iself tan derria? Inee, es nt is peranent ntlgical an episte-

lgical abstinence an persistent preference fr te parasitical use f ters

arguents rater tan risking ne f is wn, nt ake i int te very para-

ig f pilspical cwarice (y ter, nt Jaesns, t be sure)? Te

unertne f irritatin in Jaesns terwise s very respectful iscussin f

derria an ecnstructivis terefre nee nt be surprising. W cul blae

Jaesn fr tat?

Wen turning t Jaesns wn accunt f ialectics, tw cents are in

rer. First, recall tat hegelian ialectics was, at least partly, te result f te

Spinzist reactin against all te ualiss tat Kant a intruce wit is criti-

cal pilspy. Since te Pantheismusstreit, beginning in 1786, any Geranpilspers a ce t te cnclusin tat 1) tese ualiss were, in fact, te

Acilles eel f te Kantian syste, an 2) tey a best be verce by return-

ing t Spinzas ntin f te one SubstanceDeus sive natura. Wit ne pw-erful blw tis ve eliinates te trubling ualiss f Kantian epistelgy.

Inee, fr te perspective f pilspical strategy, tis was a st extrus

43. Caracteristic is is cent s far, ialectics an ecnstructin are cnsnant wit eac

ter: bt wrk t bring up int ligt te structural incerence f te iea r cnceptual psi-

tins r interpretatins wic are teir bject f critique. Tug a few lines furter n e es

nt esitate t speak f te niilis f ecnstructin, wic can arly ave been intene as a

cplient (27).


15/23

frank ankersmit98

ve. Neverteless, n atter w ne lks at it, arguing in favr f a Spinz-

ist ientity f subject an bject will frever reain prfunly cunterintuitive

if we ave te sciences in inne nee nly reeber Scellings lifelng

peless wrestling witNaturphilosophie t realize as uc.

Tis is wy we a better pt fr a re est an less utrageus nisby ixing Spinzas nis wit Vics veru et factu cnvertuntur, wit

te result tat te scpe f Spinzas nis is safely restricte t Vics wrl

tat as been ae by an iself. Even re s, Spinzist nis is ten

alst trivially true. Fr w can ake a clear earcatin between subject an

bject in te ain f culture, te uanities, an s n? We nee nly tink

f Freus supereg t recgnize tat all ur tugts, plans, ecisins, fears,

an pes are pereate trug an trug wit scial an cultural eteri-

natins. We cannt live fr even a ent witut te nr tey witut us.

Te nis f subject an bject is fr te scial an cultural wrl a basic aninisputable trut. We can terefre nly agree wit Jaesn wen e rejects

Frieric Engelss (an hegels wn) clai tat ialectics sul be vali fr te

sciences as well. Inee, tis ay reve ne re bstacle t ur willingness

t recgnize te plausibility f hegelian ialectics as ur cnceptual el wen

reflecting n cultural an istrical reality.

Tis leas e t a secn cent. hegels ialectics akes sense nly as

lng as ne avis te teptatin f reificatin, weter inspire by aterialist

r realist assuptins r (uncnscius) prejuices. dialectics resists eac effrt

t pull apart te rer f knwlege an te rer f wat we ave knwlegef. dialectics is, s t speak, always a tinking-wit-te-ting. Aittely, it

is nt easy t live up t tis ean cnsistently, fr we are all brn reifiers.

Reificatin prises t give us a l n te wrl fr wic we are always

striving just as esperately as te rwning persn fr a piece f w tat igt

save is r er life. Against tis backgrun ne ay well ave ubts abut

te ease wit wic Jaesn is able t assiilate pilspical systes int is

tugt, tug tse systes ay ave cnturs tat nt appear t agree

wit ialectics. Tink, fr exaple, f te Lacanian tria f te iaginary, te

syblic, an te Real were te syblic rer ces clse t w te categry

f language functins in current accunts f te relatinsip between language

an te wrl. Tis is certainly nt eant t present Lacan as an (albeit peculiar)

pilsper f language but t suggest tat te Lacanian tria ces clser t

current iscussins in pilspy f language tan t ialectics, an were suc

ntins as te iaginary, te syblic rer, an te Real cul nly be use

sous rature, t speak wit derria. one tus as t ask neself wat is left f sucntins nce tey are iprte int Jaesns ialectical verall fraewrk?

one cul equally tink f deleuzes istinctin between ces an axis.

Ces are a atter f cust an yt an, as suc, are prbably reucible t

a ialectical fraewrk, but axis are peratinal; tey nt ffer anyting

fr centary r exegesis, but rater are erely a set f rules t be put int

effect (186) an tus appear t be quite unialectical. Tis is all te re wr-

rying since fr deleuze, it is axis an nt ces tat gvern ecnics; tis

is te ain f ialecticspar excellence fr marxists. S ne wners weter


16/23


Jaesn is at all ties sufficiently aware f weter te any pilspical

systes e tries t incrprate int is wn tugt really len teselves t

is ever-s-spitable eclecticis.

IV. PhILoSoPhY oF hISToRY

It will nt be surprising tat Jaesn iscusses at lengt wat several hegelian

an marxist terists ave a t say n istry an n ur relatinsip t te

pastterists suc as Lukcs, Benjain, Arn, hrkeier, Altusser, r

haberas. Nr tat e as nly eager interest in cnteprary pilspy f

istry an its practitiners. As we ave seen, fr Jaesn ialectics riginate

fr te Spinzist revlt against Kantian epistelgy an te ualiss result-

ing fr it, wereas fr te last alf-century, pilspy f istry as el an

alst exclusive interest in epistelgical issues as ccasine by te questinf te pssibility an nature f istrical knwlege. It terefre fllws tat

cnteprary pilspers f istry wul ave little t ffer Jaesn even

wen tey ecie t write abut marx.44 Fr tug an epistelgical apprac

t marx is certainly pssiblen ubt abut tat!ne can nly agree wit

Jaesns view tat suc an apprac ust reain blin t te very essence f

hegelian an marxist ialectics.

Neverteless, a large part fValences of the Dialectic eals wit te pils-py f istry f Paul Riceuranter iscuragingly prlific writer. It is nt

easy t say wy Jaesn aware t Riceur te nr f is interest in prefer-ence t any ter pilsper f istry. After all, because f is backgrun in

penenlgy Riceur es nt see t be ntably clser t Jaesns wn

ialectical tugt tan is any ter cnteprary pilsper f istry. Jae-

sn iself sees t recgnize tis wen e caracterizes Riceur as a uan-

ist r as clearly a traitinal pilsper an tese epitets are certainly nt

eant t be unerst as cplients (485).45 mrever, Riceur never swe

any interest in ialectics,46 r hegel, an/r marx. Finally, as we sall see in a

ent, tere is very little tat Jaesn actually fins wrt recening in

Riceurs pilspy f istry.

T y in, Gaaer wul ave been a re bvius cice fr Jae-

sns perspective, first, because Gaaer can be seen as te st prfun

tinker in te ereneuticist traitin. Altug it is true tat ereneuticis

arse fr an epistelgical inspiratin (culinating in diltey), it as always

reaine fairly clse t a Spinzist, Vician, an/r ialectical apprac t

44. As, fr exaple, melvin Raer, Marxs Interpretation of History (New Yrk an oxfr:oxfr University Press, 1979), r G. A. Cen, Karl Marxs Theory of History (Princetn: PrincetnUniversity Press, 1978). Tese are brilliant bks, unparallele in teir knwlege f marxs text an

in te precisin an perspicacity wit wic tey analyze tese texts. But teir trbbing eart asbeen cut ut.

45. It is true tat just earlier Jaesn a praise Riceurs wrk as a stunning exaple f te

ialectic (484)but surely te ter ialectic ust be unerst etaprically ere.

46. Tug wit se creative pulling an pusing, Riceurs arguent abut te relatinsip

ang iesis1, iesis

2, an iesis

3cul be fitte witin a ialectical el. But Jaesn

apparently es nt feel callenge t try t s (502-510).


17/23

frank ankersmit100

istry. one igt well say tat ereneutics gives us te st ntlgical f

epistelgies an te st epistelgical f ntlgies. mrever, in Truthand Method, Gaaer was at pains t reve all traces f epistelgy frereneutics.47 Secn, ne nee nly tink f te s-calle ereneutic circle

t recgnize te affinities f ereneutics wit ialectical tugt. But Jaesnentins Gaaer nly nce an wen ing s istakenly attributes t i

views tat a been prpse by Kselleck (527). one ter re bvius cice

wul ave been hayen Wite. Like Jaesn iself, Wite is uc re

intereste in w we relate t te past tan in epistelgical niceties. mrever,

Wite sares Jaesns fascinatin wit literature an wit w literature ay

elp us unerstan te nature f ur relatinsip t te past. Bt call teselves

marxists. Neverteless, tug Jaesn is unubtely acquainte wit Wites

oeuvre, e refers t it nly a few ties in passing.

Riceur rganize is wn pilspy f istry arun te experience ftiean Jaesn fllws i ere. Wen efining is psitin vis visRiceur, Jaesn istinguises ang tree ways f aking sense f te experi-

ence f tie: 1) te psyclgist apprac, 2) te structuralist apprac, an 3)

te penenlgical apprac (496). Jaesn rejects te firstwic akes

te clai tat tenses erely express re funaental uan experiences f

tie (496)tug witut explaining wy. Jaesn is re elabrate n

te structuralist apprac, ainly assciate wit Greias. Bt Riceur an

Jaesn praise te structuralist apprac fr linking te experience f tie t

narrative: witut te capacity fr rganizing ur experiences narratively teexperience f tie is ipssible. But bt als criticize structuralis fr c-pletely separating narrative structures in ur use f language fr te experien-

tial aterial itself tat is rganize by te. Te iea is tat suc structures are

utsie tie teselves, since tey are ere systes fr w t cnnect textual

cpnents wit ne anter. It ten fllws tat te structuralist apprac is suigeneris incapable f explaining te experience f tie (489, 492). S tat leavesus wit te tir, te penenlgical ptin.

obviusly, tis is te apprac favre by Riceur iself an is, terefre,

te ccasin f a lengty expsitin f wat Jaesn fins g an ba in

Riceurs pilspy f istry. Tis results in a nuber f lists f prper-

ties tat are attribute by several pilspers t w te experience f tie

presents itself us t us, if seen fr a penenlgical pint f view. It all

begins wit te prepenenlgical cnceptins f tie prpse by Aristtle

an St. Augustine, an ten ves n t husserls tesis tat te experience f

tie is always a atter f retensin an prtensin, wic still is clsely

siilar t St. Augustines cnceptin f tie (499, 517). he ten ves n t

heieggers five existentials f Srge, Zuaneneit, inautenticity, Sein

zu Te, an s-calle cllective tie (516, 517). Tis accunt is cpli-

cate by te fact tat heiegger a ne re list up is sleeve, naely tat f

1) Beeutsakeit (significance), 2) datierbarkeit (atability), an 3) Ges-

pannteit (spanneness)an were it is nt clear w tese tw lists ang

47. Tug witut being wlly successful in tis, as I trie t sw in y Sublime HistoricalExperience (Stanfr: Stanfr University Press, 2005), capter 5.


18/23


tgeter (517). Riceur furter as t te cplicatin by aing tw re lists

f is wn. Te first list istinguises ang: 1)peripeteia, 2) anagnoroosis, an3)pathos (504), an te secn list ang: 1) te calenar, 2) te generatin, an3) te derriian trace (518).48 Jaesn spens a lt f tie an space n te

prs an cns f all tese lists, but ne nees t ave a telgical turn f int be able t keep track f is arguent ere. I sall terefre refrain fr trying

t s, all te re s since Jaesn apprvingly qutes Riceur, saying tat,

in te last analysis, tere cul be n pure penenlgy f tie (482).49 S,

apparently, little is t be expecte fr tese lists anyway.

But Jaesn as a far re funaental bjectin t Riceur. he pints ut

tat wen Riceur seeks t test is pilspy f istry e turns t nvels t

prvie i wit cncrete exaples. Specifically, e turns t Virginia Wlfs

Mrs. Dalloway, Tas manns Der Zauberberg, an marcel Prusts la

recherche du temps perdu. Jaesn wul be te first t recgnize tat watRiceur as t say n tese nvels is abslutely brillianthowever, novels arenot historical writing.

It is true tat all f tese nvels were written against te ark an treaten-

ing backgrun f Wrl War Iwic Riceur caracterizes as an axial

event50but all f te actin in tese nvels is nt situate in tis backgrun

itself, wereas suc backgruns are typically at te fregrun in istrical writ-

ing. mrever, as Jaesn ercilessly ges n t say, Riceurs blinness t te

ifferences between te nvel an istrical writing an t te rle playe by tie

in eac f te is nt ar t explain. Fr ere we encunter te incapacity f allf penenlgy t ve in a cnvincing an aequate way fr te level f

te iniviualan t wic te nvel is cnenet tat f cllectivities,

suc as natins, cultures, classes, an s n an tat are te bject f stuy f

istrians. Penenlgy is arvelus as lng as it investigates w te ini-

viual buils up is r er life-wrl fr aterials preceing it, but beces

utterly elpless wen yu ve fr te iniviual t te cllectivity. Just try,

fr exaple, t ake sense f te unintene cnsequences f intentinal uan

actin fr a penenlgical pint f view. Any attept t s will prvie

te nn-penenlgical terist a target tat ne siply cannt iss. S we

can nly agree wit Jaesn wen cncluing tat Riceurs uanis an

antrprpis ae i frget t iscern between tw rers: tat f te

appearance f Tie an tat f te appearance f histry (528).51

48. Accring t Jaesn, in te trace being an nt-being c-exist in a fasin uncnceptu-

alizable by pilspy (tis is an apria if ever tere was ne) (527). Se pilspers igt feel

tepte t use a sewat re pejrative ter ere tan Jaesns apria.

49. An ten Jaesn ges n t say: a stateent wic, cing fr te st einent cnte-

prary penenlgist an autrity n husserl, really aunts t a eat sentence n pilspy

itself (483).

50. Axial events are events in wic te frictins ang te past, present, an future raati-cally annunce teselves (522). Tink f w te Frenc Revlutin brke wn te cntinuity

ang te past, present, an future.

51. It is sewat iscncerting, t say te least, t see tat after tis fairly evastating c-

ent n Riceurs failure t prperly istinguis between te nvel an istrical writing, Jaesn

cntinues singing te praises f aestetics an f te nvel fr aking us see tings tat we wul

ave reaine blin t witut te. Te nvel akes us aware f te real tas in an iaginary

garen, as Jaesn nicely puts it (531). I wlly agree; but ten te relatinsip between te nvel


19/23

frank ankersmit102

Tis brings e t ne last issue. Jaesn invites is reaers t recall te

Frne, a Piranell-like spectacle coupin te first years f te reign f LuisXIV, wit ever-canging frnts an witut any eeper istrical sense r ean-

ing an ten asks te retrical questin: w sul we ceer fr in tat u-

le event tat was te Frne? . . . Wit w are we t take sies, in a situatinin wic te s-calle peple f Paris are t be unerst as ntables, lawyers,

spkeepers an teir apprentices, an very far inee fr anyting resebling

a prletariat r wntren r ppresse asses? (547, 548). he ten ges

n t argue tat tis perplexity is nt peculiar t te Frne nly, but a prble

tat ne alst inevitably runs up against wen writing istry. S tis is wy

Jaesn can agree wit Lvi-Strausss cnenatin f istrical writing fr

cpelling us t bece willy-nilly partisans in struggles wit wic we ave

n wis t ientify urselves (547). he ten explains tis st regrettable feature

f istrical writing by an appeal t Riceurs ntin f te quasi-caracter(546). Riceur intruces tis ntin in rer t expan te iea f te istrical

agent far beyn te range f actin f ere iniviual uan beings, f even te

Caesars r te Naplens. Brauels meiterranean r Fucaults iscipline are

suc quasi-caracters, an tese are istrical agents n less tan Pilip II r

Jerey Benta. It will inee be ar t avi writing istry witut taking

sies if we peple te past wit tese quasi-caracters.

Tis is a rater aazing arguent an is in nee f se cents. First,

wen trying t rescue istrians fr teir sa preicaent Jaesn rec-

ens a strategy tat is ipssible t recncile wit is cnenatin f istri-cal writing fr always cpelling us t take sies. Fr Jaesn presents te

marxist interpretatin f istry as ur unerring guie in ur ilea abut wit

w we sul sie in te past. S taking sies is nt suc an bjectinable

prceure, after all, as lng as tis taking sies is guie by te cnvictin tat

marx was basically rigt. N less aazing is Jaesns (an Lvi-Strausss)

clai tat te istrian is always cnfrnte wit te bligatin t take sies.

Fr if tere is just ne ting tat (alst) all istrians an pilspers f is-

try agree upn, it is unubtely tat tere is n greater sin in istrical writing

tan tis taking sies. Ranke sai tat it is te istrians supree task:

t stan alf fr te cnflicting parties teselves, t unerstan te, t grasp te

intentins f te cbatants, t weig teir actins accringly, an t escribe te nly

against tat backgrun. T justice t eac, t te extent tat is ue t te, tat is w

te istrian ugt t prcee. hwever, it appens nly t ften tat te istrian, cn-

vince f te infallibility f is wn pinins, begins t participate iself in tese strug-

gles in te past an t ecie te in agreeent wit is wn cnvictins. Te istrians

narrative ten beces a weapn in te struggle itself, an istry ten beces plitics.52

an istrical writing is fully n te agena againan we igt terefre invite Jaesn t tink

just a little arer abut te nature f tis relatinsip.

52. ber en Streit er Parteien zu steen, in zu begreifen, ie Kpfenen jeen in seinerAbsict zu fassen, arnac seine Tten zu wagen, un erst alsann sie zu bescreiben. Jee ie

Gerectigkeit wierfaren zu lassen, eren er sic in sic selber wert ist, as geziete sic. dageen

gesciet nur allzuft, ass ie Gescictsscreiber, vn er Unfelbarkeit irer meinungen urc-

rungen, in en Streit eintreten un in, sviel an inen liegt, it auszufecten sucen. die Erzlung

wir selber zur Waffe, un ie histrie zur Plitik. Lepl vn Ranke, histrisc-bigrafisce

Stuien: dn Carls, in idem,Rankes Smtlichen Werken. Band 40/41 (Leipzig, 1867), 452.


20/23


Since Ranke, tis ain axi fr te writing f istry as been repeate a

tusan ties by tusans f istrians an pilspers f istry.

Jaesn is a st eruite an respnsible terist, s e will unubtely be

aware tat is arguent abut taking sies brings i int a frntal cllisin

wit all f cnteprary istrical writing an pilspy f istry. Tis cal-lenges us t take a sewat eeper lk at te atter an t try t fin ut wat

ae Jaesn say suc strange tings.

Te st bvius pint t start wit is te bservatin tat unubtely is-

trians do take siesnaely, wen tey ebate w we sul lk at tepast. histrians isagree abut w we sul lk at, say, te Frenc Revlu-

tin an ten evise arguents tat wul, in teir view, cnvince eac reasn-

able persn t take their sie in te ebate n te Frenc Revlutin. S wesul ten ask urselves w t ve fr tis cnceptin f taking sies in

istrical writing t te ne tat Jaesn a in in. Te siplest way t tis is t ypstatize te views istrians ave n parts f te past int entities

existing in te past itself. Tis is, f curse, wat Riceur was ing wit is

quasi-caracters, an tis earne i Jaesns criticis, as we saw a ent

ag. But we can be sure tat Jaesn is guilty f te sae istakefr is wn

arguent abut taking sies in istry nly akes sense after a fusin f te

rer f knwing (tat is, taking sies in a istrical iscussin) wit tat f

being (tat is, taking sies in te sense f ientifying wit istrical agents in

te past itself). Tere is n ter way t ve fr te frer sense f taking

sies t te latter.We sul bserve, wever, tat fr a ialectical pilsper like Jaesn

tere is nting particularly utrageus abut te fusin f tese tw senses f

taking sies. Fr tis fusin f knwing an being is precisely wat te ialec-

tical traitin inerite fr Spinzis (as we saw in sectin II). Tis, ten, is

were Jaesns psitin wul iffer fr Riceurs. Riceur is nt a Spinz-

ist; e safely perates in te epistelgical traitinan ere te fusin f

te tw senses f taking sies es inee require ne t ypstatize istrical

views int istrical agents. But tis is ifferent fr Jaesn. We terefre

cannt accuse Jaesn f incnsistency wen criticizing Riceur wile at te

sae tie ing te exact sae ting as Riceur by requiring us t take sies

as marx wises us t . Inee, bt ce t te sae result, but fr a wlly

ifferent backgrun.

Wen expuning ialectics in sectin II, I argue tat Spinzis akes sense

if applie t uan istry. Te questin tus arises weter Jaesn igt nt

be rigt after all. Peraps te ain f uan istry is suc tat te fusin f

knwing an being (an, ence, f te tw senses f taking sies) is nt nly

legitiate ere, but even a necessary trut abut te nature f istrical writing,

wit te result tat istrians an pilspers f istry w attack Jaesn fr

is st bjectinable recenatin f taking sies (in is sense), nw fin

themselves in te ck. Jaesn can nw rigtly enunce te as nave psitiv-ists falsely believing tat tey cul rise abve te great pwers active in te

past an present teselves (wever ne igt wis t efine teir nature) t

se tieless, aistrical Arcieean pint fr wic tey can prnunce


21/23

frank ankersmit104

abut teir cnflict. Tis is certainly a st pwerful rejiner t Ranke an

is tusans f cnteprary fllwersweter istrians r pilspers f

istry.

S te questin nw is: w can we 1) accept Spinzis wit Jaesn (an

ialectics) an at te sae tie 2) avi te fusin f tese tw eanings ftaking sies? having arrive at tis stage, we sul recall Luis o. minks

arguent n Universal histry. mink efene te aazing clai tat, espite

tirty years f speculative-istry basing (e wrte tis in te 1980s) st is-

trians an pilspers f istry still believe in Universal histry. Fr tey

all assue tat tere sul be se untl stry in te past itself an tat it is

te istrians task t apprxiate tis as well as ne can wit nes wn stries.

Tis belief is, fr watever way yu lk at it, wat speculative pilspy

as always been abut. But as mink ges n t say, tere is n suc Universal

histry. Altug istrians can tell stries abut te past an altug sef te are enstrably better (r wrse) tan ters, te past is nt a stry

r a narrative itself; stries an narratives are fun nly in istry bks, r innvels, fr tat atter.53 Just as te pysicists frula can be fun nly in te

articles written by pysicists, nt in actual pysical reality itself.

As I ave recently suggeste elsewere,54 minks arguent (wse treenus

teretical significance is ipssible t verestiate) ces quite clse t te

gist f dnal davisns attack n cnceptual scees.55 In bt cases te ain

iea is tat tere are n fixe rules r algrits f watever nature tying tgeter

language an te wrl. Fr davisn, te clai is argue by an attack n teepistelgical scee tat allegely enables us t ve faultlessly fr lan-

guage t te wrl, an vice versa. Siilarly fr mink, uc te sae is argue

by swing tat stries an narratives siply ave n cunterpart in te past

itself. In bt cases we terefre ave knwlege andbeingwse existence nSpinzist feels any teptatin t eny!but witut tere being se clear an

final earcatin line between te tw f te (cinciing, fr exaple, wit te

allege barrier between subject an bject r wit tat between language an te

wrl). Bt knwlege an being are siply part f se larger wle witin

wic a cntinuusialectical, if yu willinteractin is ging n between te

tw f te. davisns tery cul tus be caracterize as a Spinzis wit-

ut te ntin f te one Substance; te sae wul be s fr mink.

Next, precisely because f te absence f any suc epistelgical rules tying

language r knwlege t te wrl, language r narrative wul ave a certain

autny wit regar t wat tey are abut. Tis is raatize by minks clai

tat te istrians narrative es nt pssess its exact cunterpart in te past

itself. But suc a clai entails tat we abann Jaesns el suggesting tat

taking sies n te level f te writing f istry cannt be iscerne fr,

53. Luis o. mink, Historical Understanding, e. Brian Fay, Eugene o. Glb, an Ricar T.Vann (Itaca, NY, an Lnn: Crnell University Press, 1987), 182-203.

54. F. R. Ankersit, Te Necessity f histricis, Journal of the Philosophy of History 4(2010), 236-238.

55. dnal davisn, on te Very Iea f a Cnceptual Scee, in idem,Inquiries into Truthand Interpretation (oxfr: oxfr University Press, 1985), 183-199.


22/23


an sul terefre be fuse wit, te taking f sies in te past itself. Tis

inability t recgnize te ways tat Spinzis an/r ialectics is able t grant an

autny f its wn t knwlege is, in te last analysis, te errr in Jaesns

arguent. But as we ave seen, apting Spinzis an/r ialectics is recncil-

able wit te l Rankean axi tat te istrian sul never take sies inte Jaesnian sense; tis is a st satisfactry fining inee.

V. CoNCLUSIoN

Gallia nis ivisa est in partes tres, sai Caesar. S it is wit Jaesns bk,

wic als cnsists f tree parts. Te first part eals wit ialectics, te tir

part wit pilspy f istry. Bt parts were iscusse abve. Between te

tw f te is a tir part f a re varie caractertug ainly evte t

re practical an plitical issues. Jaesns plitical prnunceents are, n tewle, in agreeent wit wat ne wul expect a marxist t believe. Even s, it

ay surprise reaers wen Jaesn eclares tat Sviet cunis i nt fail

because f its weaknesses but because f its success (397);56 tat prerevlutin-

ary regies sul be el respnsible fr all te cries f revlutinary terrr-

is (298, 389); tat te Rigt as always prvke te vilence in cunist

states (wic akes ne wner w Jaesn wul assess te hungarian an

Czecslvakian revlts f 1956 an 1968 an te acieveent fSolidarno in

te 1980s); tat te plitical tyranny f Stalin sul be seen in te ligt f te

universally accepte ctrine tat te state as te nply n vilence (385)r tat Stalinis was tus a success an fulfille its istric issin, scially as

well as ecnically, an it is ile t speculate weter tis cul ave appene

in se re nral peaceful, evlutinary way (397). Tis last qute especially

couldbe rea as an extenuatin f te sw trials, te Gulags, te great faine,an all te ter rrrs unlease by Stalin, ma, Pl Pt, an s n. I a nt

saying tat suc a reaing wul be crrect, but Jaesn es nt take te truble

t avi being isunerst ere. Tis is all te re regrettable because e

es nt evte ne wr t te any illins w lst teir lives uner te st

reaful circustances in te nae f marxist ielgy. Tis neelessly cpr-

ises Jaesns plitical prnunceents. Even if ne is willing t sare st f

Jaesns marxist analysis f ur cnteprary Western scieties an f wat is

wrng wit te (as is te case wit e), e ges t plitical extrees tat will

ake i lse even is st sypatetic auiences. At ties it even lks as

tug e willfully prefers prvcatin t cnvictin.

Given Jaesns plitical prnunceents (cite abve), an appeal t te

marxist ctrine f te unity f tery an praxis igt lea te reaer t infer

tat is tery f ialectics ust ten be wrng as well. But suc a reactin wul

be as verasty as it is srt-sigte; ere we ust recall tat hegels ialectics

presents us wit precisely te reverse f marxs unity f tery an praxis. Fr

hegel, wis ces nly in te evening wen te wls f minerva fly ut,

an ere tery ces after praxisas is, f curse, typically te case wit

56. Tug e writes n te very next page tat Sviet cunis was n atc fr te West

because f its flisy structures.


23/23

frank ankersmit106

istrical writing as well. here, te ctrine f te unity f tery an praxis is

nt necessarily part f ialectics, an ialectics is terefre nt autatically

cprise if sene were t infer bjectinable plitical cnclusins fr it.

Tis is all te re reasn t lk frwar t Jaesns next bks n hegels

Phnomenologie an n marxsDas Kapital. Lets never frget tat ialectics iste key t any f te secrets f istrical writing, an terefre we sul be

st grateful t Freric Jaesn fr aving s pwerfully reine us f tat.

frank ankersmit

Glimmen, The Netherlands

Documents

ankersmit.x