Intellectuals and emergencies

[Giles Peaker]

Whilst the discussion continues on the general theme of intellectuals and 
political practice, I would like to offer some comments on the appearence 
of Benjamin in the thread, in particular in relation to Jonathon Broad's 
posts.

On 31-7-97 Jonathon Broad wrote:

>What this amounts to is a difficulty I have in thinking in terms of
>the "universal" which might reconcile human difference.  Unless we think
>of this universal in terms of time.  The sorts of nasty oppositions I have
>been speaking of, which are the glue of liberal and capitialist
>institutions although for different reasons, can only be brought into an
>articulatory position by a strategy which emphasizes subversion, patience,
>peace, and a reflexive sense of justice which a radical takes upon him or
>herself because the "enemy" is unwilling to do so.  The power of
>domination is insurmountable--in the immediate.  The gun compels, because
>life is precious if bittersweet.  But that is only one way of looking at a
>situation, one that emphasizes history as an absolute succession of
>instants encapsulating everybody.  From that point of view, the victor is
>always victorious--nothing can be done for the lost, because they did not
>survive.  A radical picture of history must resist this perspective, and
>not give in to the melancholy it provokes.  Precisely _because_ the
>victors survived means that justice is still possible, even obligatory.
>Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History, esp. parts VII and VIII,
>are difinitive for me in this matter.  He quotes Flaubert saying "few will
>guess how sad one sad one had to be in order to resuscitate Carthage" and
>declares that historical materialism (of which he had a fairly
>idiosyncratic view) must dissociate itself as far as possible from this
>view, because it is the task of radical thought to brush history against
>the grain.  Orthodox liberalism regards conflict as endemic, given, and
>inevitable, and its institutions require it to flourish.  I say deprive
>these institutions of the pleasure, and work with the real problems in
>front of you.  Protest, organize, march, help people out, talk, eat
>injustice and blows for lunch and never waver from the task--prove history
>wrong.

As a quick pre-comment, conflict _is_ endemic. It is *given* in all 
senses of the word, but not inevitable. I always supposed it had 
something to do with the relations of production. (Sorry, that was cheap).

While I can see clearly the usefulness that Benjamin's Theses on the 
Philosophy of History have for you (and for us all), I would like to make 
a couple of comments. Actually, one comment is not mine, but Horkheimer's 
in response to Benjamin: 'The dead will remain dead'. They will. What 
Horkheimer had identified was that the theological underpinning of the 
Theses presented some serious problems - and particularly in terms of a 
connection of theory/critique and praxis. (At this stage, the Frankfurt 
institute were still, if increasingly nominally, interested in this 
connection). Benjamin's vision of a political remembrance and a 
revolutionary interruption could only pose political action in terms of a 
mimicry, if not even a realisation, of the messianic end to history. The 
ways in which this appears are violent both in rhetoric and implication. 
It is an eschatology of destruction. Benjamin's vision of a 'concrete' 
working class politics is limited to the general strike, and even that is 
compared to divine violence. Actually that wasn't the only appearance, I 
lie, but only in degree. The other is the turning of war into civil war - 
but this was a statement made in 1930, not 1917/8. His opposition to the 
popular front policy, although admirable, has a similar source, I think. 
His few associations with the politically active, with the exceptions of 
Brecht and his brother, were usually with the ultra left within the CP, 
at least before the mid 1930s. I am not sure how this sits with your 
concerns about action, or your comments in this passage:

>Yet what radicals run into in their own articulations is the monolithicity
>of "the system", "capital", "exploitation", and those individuals and
>groups we identify as perpetuating these institutions.  What I would argue
>is that we too must be willing to submit to the sense of justice we apply
>to those we are obliged to oppose.  We must recognize that this opposition
>is a risk we must take, not for our own sake, but for the sake of peace.
>At least, this is my own feeling on the matter.  Violence, in my opinion,
>is the absolute last resort.  I would even advance the claim that violence
>is never justified, although sometimes neccessary when true silence
>threatens to overcome us--when extermination, in the fiercest and most
>total sense of the word, shows its face.  This is one lesson our century
>has taught, and we will never be able to repay our debt to those that paid
>the price for us to learn it.  I do what I do, speak to make peace,
>because it is the only thing I believe can even approach a state of
>justice vis a vis all the throats that have been reduced to screams of
>rage, pain, and finally silence.  All the radicals I have met or read seem
>to be motivated by something similar, and that is why I find community
>with them and hope for humanity.

I should be clear that I regard Benjamin's critiques in the Theses as 
both useful and frequently right, but I am also continually troubled by 
them. They contain much of their own time, the logic of which I, for one, 
would not want played out now. One also needs to bear in mind their 
target at the time; social democratic and Second International-like 
complacency about the 'trajectory of history'. I doubt that there are 
many leftists left who continue to believe that the 'logic of history' is 
inevitably on their side, and have no doubt that there are few who 
haven't shared the vision of history as catastrophe. But, as Benjamin 
himself knew from his studies of Baudelaire, avoiding melancholy can all 
too often result in nihilist rage - and politics as energetics or 
putschism. Benjamin never managed to bring together the destructive and 
constructive aspects of his work, and given his situation, this can 
hardly be surprising. But our times are not his, the 1930s are not the 
1990s, whatever the seductive similarities. This brings me to the passage 
on the state of emergency that you used as your sig.:

>"The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the 'state of
>	emergency' in which we live is not the exception but the rule.  We must
>	attain to a conception of history that is in keeping with this insight.
>	Then we shall clearly realize that it is our task to bring about a real
>	state of emergency..." (Benjamin, _Illuminations_, p.257)

I, hopeless optimist that I am, still regard the task as being to enable 
history to truly begin, rather than to end it. From what you write, it 
seems as though the beginning is also your aim. Benjamin, it seems to me, 
offers us an utter condemnation of the world. It is very hard to go on 
from such a condemnation. In the end, if you'll pardon the expression, 
justice is divine in Benjamin. The state of emergency he aims for is not 
'within' history, but is that which, finally, interrupts it.

yours

Giles