How do you envisage the relationship between your early philosophical writings, above all L’Etre et Le Néant, and your present theoretical work, from the Critique de la Raison Dialectique onwards? In the Critique, the typical concepts of L’Etre et Le Néant have disappeared, and
a completely new vocabulary has taken their place. Yet when reading the
passages of your forthcoming study of Flaubert published in Les Temps Modernes one is struck by the sudden re-emergence of the characteristic idiom of the early work—thetic consciousness, ego, nihilation, being, nothingness. These notions are now juxtaposed in the text with the distinct set of concepts which derive from the Critique—serialization, totalization, practico-inert, collectives. What is the precise relationship between the two in your current thought?
The
basic question here, of course, is my relationship to Marxism. I will
try to explain autobiographically certain aspects of my early work,
which may help to clarify the reasons why my outlook changed so
fundamentally after the Second World War. A simple formula would be to
say that life taught me la force des choses—the power of circumstances. In a way, L’Etre et Le Néant
itself should have been the beginning of a discovery of this power of
circumstances, since I had already been made a soldier, when I had not
wanted to be one. Thus I had already encountered something that was not
my freedom and which steered me from without. Then I was taken prisoner,
a fate which I had sought to escape. Hence I started to learn what I
have called human reality among things: Being-in-theworld.
Then,
little by little, I found that the world was more complicated than
this, for during the Resistance there appeared to be a possibility of
free decision. For my state of mind during those years, I think that the
first plays I wrote are very symptomatic: I called them a ‘theatre of
freedom’. The other day, I re-read a prefatory note of mine to a
collection of these plays—Les Mouches, Huis Clos and
others—and was truly scandalized. I had written: ‘Whatever the
circumstances, and wherever the site, a man is always free to choose to
be a traitor or not . . .’. When I read this, I said to myself: it’s
incredible, I actually believed that!
To
understand how I could have done so, you must remember that there was a
very simple problem during the Resistance—ultimately, only a question of
courage. One had to accept the risks involved in what one was doing,
that is, of being imprisoned or deported. But beyond this? A Frenchman
was either for the Germans or against them, there was no other option.
The real political problems, of being ‘for, but’ or ‘against, but’, were
not posed by this experience. The result was that I concluded that in
any circumstances, there is always a possible choice. Which is false.
Indeed, it is so false that I later wanted precisely to refute myself by
creating a character in Le Diable et Le Bon Dieu, Heinrich, who
cannot choose. He wants to choose, of course, but he cannot choose
either the Church, which has abandoned the poor, or the poor, who have
abandoned the Church. He is thus a living contradiction, who will never
choose. He is totally conditioned by his situation.
However,
I understood all this only much later. What the drama of the war gave
me, as it did everyone who participated in it, was the experience of
heroism. Not my own, of course—all I did was a few errands. But the
militant in the Resistance who was caught and tortured became a myth for
us. Such militants existed, of course, but they represented a sort of
personal myth as well. Would we be able to hold out against torture too?
The problem then was solely that of physical endurance—it was not the
ruses of history or the paths of alienation. A man is tortured: what
will he do? He either speaks or refuses to speak. This is what I mean by
the experience of heroism, which is a false experience.
After the war came the true experience, that of society.
But I think it was necessary for me to pass via the myth of heroism
first. That is to say, the pre-war personage who was more or less
Stendhal’s egotistical individualist had to be plunged into
circumstances against his will, yet where he still had the power to say
yes or no, in order to encounter the inextricable entanglements of the
post-war years as a man totally conditioned by his social existence and
yet sufficiently capable of decision to reassume all this conditioning
and to become responsible for it. For the idea which I have never ceased
to develop is that in the end one is always responsible for what is
made of one. Even if one can do nothing else besides assume this
responsibility. For I believe that a man can always make something out
of what is made of him. This is the limit I would today accord to
freedom: the small movement which makes of a totally conditioned social
being someone who does not render back completely what his conditioning
has given him. Which makes of Genet a poet when he had been rigorously
conditioned to be a thief.
Perhaps the book where I have best explained what I mean by freedom is, in fact, Saint Genet.
For Genet was made a thief, he said ‘I am a thief’, and this tiny
change was the start of a process whereby he became a poet and then
eventually a being no longer even on the margin of society, someone who
no longer knows where he is, who falls silent. It cannot be a happy
freedom, in a case like this. Freedom is not a triumph. For Genet, it
simply marked out certain routes which were not initially given.
L’Etre et Le Néant
traced an interior experience, without any coordination with the
exterior experience of a petty-bourgeois intellectual, which had become
historically catastrophic at a certain moment. For I wrote L’Etre et Le Néant
after the defeat of France, after all. But catastrophes have no
lessons, unless they are the culmination of a praxis. Then one can say,
my action has failed. But the disaster which overwhelmed the country had
taught us nothing. Thus, in L’Etre et Le Néant, what you
could call ‘subjectivity’ is not what it would be for me now, the small
margin in an operation whereby an interiorization reexteriorizes itself
in an act. But ‘subjectivity’ and ‘objectivity’ seem to me entirely
useless notions today, anyway. I might still use the term ‘objectivity’,
I suppose, but only to emphasize that everything is objective. The
individual interiorizes his social determinations: he interiorizes the
relations of production, the family of his childhood, the historical
past, the contemporary institutions, and he then re-exteriorizes these
in acts and options which necessarily refer us back to them. None of
this existed in L’Etre et Le Néant.
In L’Etre et Le Néant, you
radically rejected the concept of the unconscious, saying that it was a
philosophical contradiction. The model of consciousness in your early
work effectively excludes any idea of it whatever. Consciousness is
always transparent to itself, even if the subject creates a false screen of ‘bad faith’. Since then, you have among other things written a film-script on Freud—
—I
broke with Huston preciesly because Huston did not understand what the
unconscious was. That was the whole problem. He wanted to suppress it,
to replace it with the pre-conscious. He did not want the unconscious at
any price—
The question one would like to ask is how you conceive the precise theoretical statute of the work of Freud today? Given your class position, it is not perhaps so surprising that you did not discover Marx before the war. But how did you miss Freud? Surely the opaque evidence of the unconscious, its resistances, should have been accessible to you even then? They are not exactly comparable to the class struggle.
The
two questions are linked, however. The thought of both Marx and Freud
is a theory of conditioning in exteriority. When Marx says: ‘It matters
little what the bourgeoisie thinks it does, the important thing is what
it does,’ one could replace the ‘bourgeoisie’ by ‘a hysteric’, and the
formula would be one of Freud. Having said this, I must try to recount
my relationship to Freud’s work biographically. I will begin by saying
that I undoubtedly had a deep repugnance for psychoanalysis in my youth,
which needs to be explained as much as my innocence of the class
struggle. The fact that I was a petty-bourgeois was responsible for the
latter; one might say that the fact that I was French was responsible
for the former. There would certainly be a lot of truth in this. You
must never forget the weight of Cartesian rationalism in France. When
you have just taken the bachot at the age of 17, with the ‘I think, therefore I am’ of Descartes as your set text, and you open The Psychopathology of Everyday Life,
and you read the famous episode of Signorelli with its substitutions,
combinations and displacements, implying that Freud was simultaneously
thinking of a patient who had committed suicide and of certain Turkish
mores, and so on—when you read all that, your breath is simply taken
away.
Such investigations were completely outside
my preoccupations at the time, which were at bottom to provide a
philosophical foundation for realism. Which in my opinion is possible
today, and which I have tried to do all my life. In other words, how to
give man both his autonomy and his reality among real objects, avoiding
idealism without lapsing into a mechanistic materialism. I posed the
problem in this way because I was ignorant of dialectical materialism,
although I should add that this later allowed me to assign certain
limits to it—to validate the historical dialectic while rejecting a
dialectic of nature, in the sense of a natural process which produces
and resolves man into an ensemble of physical laws.
To
return to Freud, however, I have to say that I was incapable of
understanding him because I was a Frenchman with a good Cartesian
tradition behind me, imbued with a certain rationalism, and I was
therefore deeply shocked by the idea of the unconscious. However, I will
not say only this because I must add that I remain shocked by
what was inevitable in Freud—the biological and physiological language
with which he underpinned thoughts which were not translatable into
without mediation. Right up to the time of Fliess, as you know, he wrote
physiological studies designed to provide an equivalent of the cathexes
and equilibria he had found in psychoanalysis. The result is that the
manner in which he describes the psychoanalytic object suffers from a
kind of mechanistic cramp. This is not always true, for there are
moments when he transcends this. But in general this language produces a
mythology of the unconscious which I cannot accept. I am completely in agreement with the facts of diguise and repression, as facts. But the words
‘repression’, ‘censorship’, or ‘drive’—words which express one moment a
sort of finalism and the next moment a sort of mechanism, these I
reject. Let us take the example of ‘condensation’, for instance, which
is an ambivalent term in Freud. One can interpret it simply as a
phenomenon of association, in the same way as your English philosophers
and psychologists of the 18th and 19th centuries. Two images are drawn
together externally, they condense and form a third: this is classical
psychological atomism. But one can also interpret the term on the
contrary as expressive of a finality. Condensation occurs because two
images combined answer a desire, a need. This sort of ambiguity occurs
again and again in Freud. The result is a strange representation of the
unconscious as a set of rigorous mechanistic determinations, in any
event a casuality, and at the same time as a mysterious finality, such
that there are ‘ruses’ of the unconscious, as there are ‘ruses’ of
history; yet it is impossible to reunite the two in the work of many
analysts—at least early analysts. I think that there is always a
fundamental ambiguity in them; the unconscious is one moment another consciousness, and the next moment other than consciousness. What is other than consciousness then becomes simply a mechanism.
Thus
I would reproach psychaoanalytic theory with being a syncretic and not a
dialectical thought. The word ‘complex’, indeed, indicates this very
evidently: interpenetration without contradiction. I agree, of course,
that there may exist an enormous number of ‘larval’ contradictions
within individuals, which are often translated in certain situations by
interpenetrations and not by confrontations. But this does not mean
these contradictions do not exist. The results of syncretism, on the
contrary, can be seen in the idea of the Oedipus complex, for instance:
the fact is that analysts manage to find everything in it, equally well
the fixation on the mother, love of the mother, or hatred of the mother,
as Melanie Klein argues. In other words, anything can be derived from
it, since it is not structured. The consequence is that an
analyst can say one thing and then the contrary immediately afterwards,
without in any way worrying about lack of logic, since after all
‘opposites interpenetrate’. A phenomenon can mean this, while its
contrary can also mean the same thing. Psychoanalytic theory is thus a
‘soft’ thought. It has no dialectical logic to it. Psychoanalysts will
tell me that this because there is no such logic in reality. But this
precisely what I am not sure of: I am convinced that complexes exist,
but I am not so certain that they are not structured.
In
particular, I believe that if complexes are true structures, ‘analytic
scepticism’ would have to be abandoned. What I call the ‘affective
scepticism’ of psychoanalysts is the belief of so many of them that the
relationship which unites two people is only a ‘reference’ to an
original relationship which is an absolute: an allusion to a primal
scene, incomparable and unforgettable—yet forgotten—between father and
mother. Ultimately, any sentiment experienced by an adult becomes for
the analyst a sort of occasion for the rebirth of another. Now, there is
a real truth in this: the fixation of a girl on an older man may well
come from her father, or the fixation of a young man on a girl may
derive from a profusion of original relationships. But what is missing
in conventional psychoanalytic accounts is the idea of dialectical
irreducibility. In a truly dialectical theory, such as historical
materialism, phenomena derive from each other dialectically: there are
different configurations of dialectical reality, and each of these
configurations is rigorously conditioned by the previous one, while
preserving and superseding it at the same time. This supersession is,
however, precisely irreducible. While one configuration may preserve
another, it can never simply be reduced to its predecessor. It is the
idea of this autonomy that is lacking in psychoanalytic theory. A
sentiment or a passion between two persons is certainly highly
conditioned by their relationship to the ‘primal object’, and one can
locate this object within it and explain the new relationship by it; but
the relationship itself remains irreducible.
Thus
there is an essential difference in my relationship to Marx and my
relationship to Freud. When I discovered the class struggle, this was a true
discovery, in which I now believe totally, in the very form of the
descriptions which Marx gave of it. Only the epoch has changed;
otherwise it is the same struggle with the same classes and the same
road to victory. Whereas I do not believe in the unconscious in the form
in which psychoanalysis presents it to us. In my present book on
Flaubert, I have replaced my earlier notion of consciousness (although I
still use the word a lot), with what I call le vécu—lived
experience. I will try to describe in a moment what I mean by this term,
which is neither the precautions of the preconscious, nor the
unconscious, nor consciousness, but the terrain in which the individual
is perpetually overflowed by himself and his riches and consciousness
plays the trick of determining itself by forgetfulness.
In L’Etre et Le Néant, there is not much room for the phenomenon of dreams. For Freud dreams mere a privileged ‘space’ of the unconscious, the zone where psychoanalysis was discovered. Do you try to situate the space of dreams in your current work? This would be a concrete test of your present relationship to Freud.
My
work on Flaubert deals with dreams. Unfortunately Flaubert himself
reports very few of his dreams. But there are two extremely striking
ones—both nightmares, which he recounts in Mémoires d’un Fou,
an autobiography he wrote at the age of 17, and which are thus perhaps
partly invented. One concerns his father, the other his mother: both
reveal his relationship to his parents with an extraordinary evidence.
The interesting thing, however, is that otherwise Flaubert virtually
never mentions his parents in his writings. In fact, he had very bad
relationships with both his father and his mother, for a whole number of
reasons which I try to analyse. He says nothing about them. They do not
exist in his early works. The only time that he speaks of them, he
speaks of them precisely where a psychoanalyst would like him to do, in
the narrative of a dream. Yet it is Flaubert himself who spontaneously
does so. Thereafter, at the very end of his life, five years before he
died, he published a novella called La Légende de Saint Julien l’Hospitalier,
which he said he had wanted to write for thirty years: it is in effect
the story of a man who kills his father and his mother and who becomes a
writer by doing so.
Thus Flaubert has two quite
different conceptions of himself. One is at the level of banal
description, for example when he writes to his mistress Louise: ‘What am
I? Am I intelligent or am I stupid? Am I sensitive or am I stolid? Am I
mean or am I generous? Am I selfish or am I selfless? I have no idea, I
suppose I am like everyone else, I waver between all these. . . .’ In
other words, at this level he is completely lost. Why? Because none of
these notions has any meaning in themselves. They only acquire a meaning
from inter-subjectivity, in other words what I have called in the Critique
the ‘objective spirit’ within which each member of a group or society
refers to himself and appears to others, establishing relations of
interiority between persons which derive from the same information or
the same context.
Yet one cannot say that Flaubert
did not have, at the very height of his activity, a comprehension of
the most obscure origins of his own history. He once wrote a remarkable
sentence: ‘You are doubtless like myself, you all have the same
terrifying and tedious depths’—les mêmes profondeurs terribles et ennuyeuses.
What could be a better formula for the whole world of psychoanalysis,
in which one makes terrifying discoveries, yet which always tediously
come to the same thing? His awareness of these depths was not an
intellectual one. He later wrote that he often had fulgurating
intuitions, akin to a dazzling bolt of lightning in which one
simultaneously sees nothing and sees everything. Each time they went
out, he tried to retrace the paths revealed to him by this blinding
light, stumbling and falling in the subsequent darkness.
For
me, these formulations define the relationship which Flaubert had with
what is ordinarily called the unconscious, and what I would call a total
absence of knowledge, but a real comprehension. I distinguish here
between comprehension and intellection: there can be intellection of a
practical conduct, but only comprehension of a passion. What I call le vécu—lived
experience—is precisely the ensemble of the dialectical process of
psychic life, in so far as this process is obscure to itself because it
is a constant totalization, thus necessarily a totalization which cannot
be conscious of what it is. One can be conscious of an external
totalization, but one cannot be conscious of a totalization which also
totalizes consciousness. ‘Lived experience’, in this sense, is
perpetually susceptible of comprehension, but never of knowledge. Taking
it as a point of departure, one can know certain psychic phenomena by
concepts, but not this experience itself. The highest form of
comprehension of lived experience can forge its own language—which will
always be inadequate, and yet which will often have the metaphorical
structure of the dream itself. Comprehension of a dream occurs when a
man can express it in a language which is itself dreamt. Lacan says that
the unconscious is structured like a language. I would say that the
language which expresses it has the structure of a dream. In other
words, comprehension of the unconscious in most cases never achieves
explicit expression. Flaubert constantly speaks of l’indisable, which means the ‘unsayable’, only the word does not exist in French, it should be l’indicible
(perhaps it was a regional usage in Flaubert’s time, but in any case it
is not the normal word). The ‘unsayable’, however, was something very
definite for him. When he gave his autobiography to his mistress at the
age of 25, he wrote to her: ‘You will suspect all the unsayable,’ Which
did not mean family secrets or anything like that. Of course, he hated
his elder brother, but this is not what he was talking about. He meant
precisely this kind of comprehension of oneself which cannot be named
and which perpetually escapes one.
The conception of ‘lived experience’ marks my change since L’Etre et Le Néant.
My early work was a rationalist philosophy of consciousness. It was all
very well for me to dabble in apparently non-rational processes in the
individual, the fact remains that L’Etre et Le Néant is a
monument of rationality. But in the end it becomes an irrationalism,
because it cannot account rationally for those processes which are
‘below’ consciousness and which are also rational, but lived as
irrationall. Today, the notion of ‘lived experience’ represents an
effort to preserve that presence to itself which seems to me
indispensable for the existence of any psychic fact, while at the same
time this presence is so opaque and blind before itself that it is also
an absence from itself. Lived experience is always simultaneously
present to itself and absent from itself. In developing this notion, I
have tried to surpass the traditional psychoanalytic ambiguity of
psychic facts which are both teleological and mechanical, by showing
that every psychic fact involves an intentionality which aims at
something, while among them a certain number can only exist if they are
comprehended, but neither named nor known. The latter include what I
call the ‘stress’ of a neurosis. A neurosis is in the first instance a
specific wound, a defective structure which is a certain way of living a
childhood. But this is only the initial wound: it is then patched up
and bandaged by a system which covers and soothes the wound, and which
then like anti-bodies in certain cases, suddenly does something
abominable to the organism. The unity of this system is the neurosis.
The work of its ‘stress’ is intentional, but it cannot be seized as such
without disappearing. It is precisely for this reason that if it is
transferred into the domain of knowledge, by analytic treatment, it can
no longer be reproduced in the same manner.
There is an obvious question raised by your work on Flaubert. You have already written a study of Baudelaire—
—A very inadequate, an extremly bad one—
Then a long book on Genet, after that an essay on Tintoretto and then an autobiography, Les Mots. After
this succession of writings, what will be the methodological novelty of
the book on Flaubert? Why exactly did you decide to return once again
to the project of explaining a life?
In the Question de Méthode,
I discussed the different mediations and procedures which could permit
an advance in our knowledge of men if they were taken together. In fact,
everyone knows and everyone admits, for instance, that psychoanalysis
and Marxism should be able to find the mediations necessary to allow a
combination of the two. Everyone adds, of course, that psychoanalysis is
not primary, but that correctly coupled and rationalized with Marxism,
it can be useful.
Likewise, everyone says that
there are American sociological notions which have a certain validity,
and that sociology in general should be used—not, of course, the Russian
variety which is no more than an enumeration or nomenclature. Everyone
agrees on all this. Everyone in fact says it—but who has tried to do it?
I myself was in general only repeating these irreproachable maxims in Question de Méthode.
The idea of the book on Flaubert was to abandon these theoretical
disquisitions, because they were ultimately getting us nowhere, and to
try to give a concrete example of how it might be done. The result can
look after itself. Even if it is a failure, it can thereby give others
the idea of redoing it, better. For the question the book seeks to
answer is: how shall I study a man with all these methods, and how in
this study will these methods condition each other and find their
respective place?
You feel you did not have these keys when you wrote Saint Genet, for example?
No,
I did not have them all. It is obvious that the study of the
conditioning of Genet at the level of institutions and of history is
inadequate—very, very inadequate. The main lines of the interpretation,
that Genet was an orphan of Public Assistance, who was sent to a peasant
home and who owned nothing, remain true, doubtless. But all the same,
this happened in 1925 or so and there was a whole context to this life
which is quite absent. The Public Assistance, a foundling represents a
specific social phenomenon, and anyway Genet is a product of the 20th
century; yet none of this is registered in the book.
Whereas
today I would like the reader to feel the presence of Flaubert the
whole time; my ideal would be that the reader simultaneously feels,
comprehends and knows the personality of Flaubert, totally as an
individual and yet totally as an expression of his time. In other words,
Flaubert can only be understood by his difference from his neighbours.
Do
you see what I mean by this? For example, there were a considerable
number of writers who elaborated analogous theories at the time and
produced more or less valid works inspired by them, Leconte de Lisle or
the Goncourts, for example: it is necessary to try to study how they
were all determined to produce this particular vision, and how Flaubert
was determined similarly yet otherwise, and saw it in another fashion.
My aim is to try to demonstrate the encounter between the development of
the person, as psychoanalysis has shown it to us, and the development
of history. For at a certain moment, an individual in his very deepest
and most intimate conditioning, by the family, can fulfil a historical
role. Robespierre could be taken as an example, for instance. But it
would be impossible to pursue such a study of him, because there are no
materials for doing so. What would be necessary to know is what was the
encounter of the revolution which created the Committee of Public
Safety, and the son of Monsieur and Madame Robespierre of Arras.
This is the theoretical aim of your present work. But why exactly the choice of Flaubert?
Because he is the imaginary. With him, I am at the border, the barrier of dreams.
There
have been writers or politicians who have left a certain work and who
could equally well provide the material for such a study—
In
theory, yes. There were a number of reasons, however, which led me to
select Flaubert. Firstly, to give the strictly circumstantial cause of
this selection: Flaubert is one of the very rare historical or literary
personages who have left behind so much information about themselves.
There are no less than 13 volumes of correspondence, each of 600 pages
or so. He often wrote letters to several persons the same day, with
slight variations between them, which are often very amusing. Apart from
this, there are numerous reports and witnesses of him; the Goncourt
brothers kept a diary and saw Flaubert very frequently, so that we see
him from the outside through the Goncourts and we also have a record of
what he said to others about himself, recorded by the Goncourts—not an
altogether trustworthy source, of course, since they were rancorous
imbeciles in many ways. Nevertheless, there are many facts in their
Journal. Besides this, of course, there is a complete correspondence
with George Sand, letters of George Sand on Flaubert, memoirs of him,
and so on. All this is completely circumstantial, but it is of great
importance.
Secondly, however, Flaubert represents
for me the exact opposite of my own conception of literature: a total
disengagement and a certain idea of form, which is not that which I
admire. For example, Stendhal is a writer whom I greatly prefer to
Flaubert, while Flaubert is probably much more important for the
development of the novel than Stendhal. I mean that Stendhal is much
finer and stronger. One can give oneself completely to him—his style is
acceptable, his heroes are sympathetic, his vision of the world is true
and the historical conception behind it is very acute. There is nothing
like this in Flaubert. Only, Flaubert is much more significant than
Stendhal for the history of the novel. If Stendhal had not existed, it
would still have been possible to go straight from Laclos to Balzac.
Whereas, let us say, Zola or the Nouveau Roman are inconceivable without
Flaubert. Stendhal is greatly loved by the French, but his influence on
the novel is minimal. Flaubert’s influence by contrast is immense, and
for this reason alone it is important to study him. Given that, he began
to fascinate me precisely because I saw him in every way as the
contrary of myself. I found myself wondering: ‘How was he possible?’ For
I then rediscovered another dimension of Flaubert, which is besides the
very source of his talent. I was used to reading Stendhal and company,
where one is in complete accord with the hero, whether he is Julien
Sorel or Fabrice.
Reading Flaubert one is plunged
into persons with whom one is in complete disaccord, who are irksome.
Sometimes one feels with them, and then somehow they suddenly rejects
one’s sympathy and one finds oneself once again antagonistic to them.
Obviously it was this that fascinated me, because it made me curious.
This is precisely Flaubert’s art. It is clear that he detested himself,
and when he speaks of his principal characters, he has a terrible
attitude of sadism and masochism towards them: he tortures them because
they are himself, and also to show that other people and the world
torture him. He also tortures them because they are not him and he is
anyway vicious and sadistic and wants to torture others. His unfortunate
characters have very little luck, submitted to all this.
At
the same time, Flaubert writes from within his characters and is always
speaking of himself in a certain fashion. He thus succeeds in speaking
of himself in a way that is unique. This type of discomfited, refused
confession, with its self-hatred, its constant reversion to things he
comprehends without knowing, wanting to be completely lucid and yet
always grating—Flaubert’s testimony about himself is something
exceptional, which had never been seen before and has not been seen
since. This is another motive for studying him.
The third reason for choosing Flaubert is that he represents a sequel to L’Imaginaire. You may remember that in my very early book L’Imaginaire
I tried to show that an image is not a sensation reawakened, or
reworked by the intellect, or even a former perception altered and
attenuated by knowledge, but is something entirely different—an absent
reality, focussed in its absence through what I called an analngon:
that is to say, an object which serves as an analogy and is traversed
by an intention. For example, when you are going to sleep, the little
dots in your eyes—phosphenes—may serve as an analogy for every kind of
oneiric or hypnagogic image. Between waking and sleeping, some people
see vague shapes pass, which are phosphenes through which they focus on
an imagined person or a thing. In L’Lmaginaire, I tried to
prove that imaginary objects—images—are an absence. In my book on
Flaubert, I am studying imaginary persons—people who like Flaubert act
out roles. A man is like a leak of gas, escaping into the imaginary.
Flaubert did so perpetually; yet he also had to see reality because he
hated it, so there is the whole question of the relationship between the
real and the imaginary which I try to study in his life and work.
Finally, via all this, it is possible to ask the question: what was the imaginary social world
of the dreamy bourgeoisie of 1848? This is an intriguing subject in
itself. Between 1830 and 1840 Flaubert was in a Lycée in Rouen, and all
his tests speak of his fellow-pupils there as contemptible, mediocre
bourgeois. It so happens, however, that there were five years of
violent, historic fights in the lycées of that time! After the
revolution of 1830, there were boys who launched political struggles in
the schools, who fought and were defeated. The reading of the romantics,
of which Flaubert speaks so often as a challenge to their parents, is
only explicable in this perspective: when these youths finally become blasés,
they have been reciperated as ‘ironic’ bourgeois, and they have failed.
The extraordinary thing is that Flaubert does not say a word about any
of this. He simply describes the boys who surround him as if they were
future adults—in other words, abject. He writes: ‘I saw defects which
would become vices, needs which would become manias, follies which would
become crimes—in short, children would become men.’ The only history of
the school for him was the passage from childhood to maturity. The
reality is, however, that this history was that of a bourgeoisie seized
with shame at itself in its sons, of the defeat of these sons and
thereby the suppression of its shame. The end result of this history
will be the massacre of 1848.
Before 1830, the
bourgeoisie was hiding under its blankets. When it finally emerged, its
sons cried ‘Bravo! We are going to declare the Republic,’ but their
fathers found they needed an eiderdown after all. Louis-Philippe became
king. The sons persuaded themselves their fathers had been duped, and
continued the struggle. The result was an uproar in the schools: in
vain, they were expelled. In 1831, when LouisPhilippe dismisses
Lafayette and the road to reaction is open, there were boys of 13 or 14
in Flaubert’s school, who calmly refused to go to confession, having
decided that this was an excellent pretext for a confrontation with the
authorities, since after all the bourgeoisie was still officially
Voltairean. Confession was a survival from Louis XVIII and Charles X,
and raised awkward questions about compulsory religious instruction,
which might eventually get as far as the Chamber of Deputies. I take off
my hat to these boys of 14 who planned this strategy, knowing very well
that they would be expelled from the school. The chaplain descended on
them—‘Confess!’ ‘No!’—then another functionary— ‘No, No, No!’—they were
taken to the principal and thrown out of the school. Whereupon there was
a gigantic uproar in the whole college, which was what they had hoped
for. The fourth year class threw rotten eggs at the vice-principal, and
two more boys were expelled. Then the day-boys of the class met at dawn
and took an oath to avenge their comrades. The next day at six in the
morning, the boarders opened the doors to them. Together, they seized
and occupied the building. Already, in 1831! From their fortress there,
they bombarded the Academic Council which was deliberating in another
building within reach of their windows.
The
principal was meanwhile throwing himself at the feet of the older
pupils, imploring them not to solidarize with the
occupation—successfully. Eventually, the fourth year class did not
achieve the reinstatement of their comrades, but the authorities had to
promise that there would be no sanctions against them for the
occupation. Three days later, they found they had been tricked: the
college was closed for two months. Exactly like today!
The
next year, when they came back, they were naturally raging and there
was constant turbulence in the Lycée, This was the time in which
Flaubert lived, and yet he did not experience it like that. He wrote a
great deal about his childhood and youth—but there is not a single text
which refers to this history. In fact, what happened, of course, was
that he lived the same evolution of this generation in his own way. He
was unaffected by this violent episode and yet he arrived at the same
result by a different route somewhat later. The philosophy teacher in
the school fell ill, and a substitute took over for him. The pupils
decided the substitute was an incompetent and made life impossible for
him. The principal tried to victimize two or three, and the whole class
solidarized with them: Flaubert now wrote their collective letter to the
principal, denouncing the quality of the course and the threats of
punishment. The upshot was that he and two or three others were expelled
from the school. The meaning of the protest this time is very clear:
Flaubert and his class-mates were young bourgeois demanding a proper
bourgeois education—‘Our fathers are paying enough, after all’. The
evolution of a generation and of a class are manifest in this second
episode. These different experiences produce a bitter literature on the
bourgeoisie and then this generation resigns itself to becoming merely
ironic—another way of being bourgeois.
Why have you opted for biography and the theatre in recent years, and abandoned the novel? Is it that you think Marxism and psychoanalysis have rendered the novel as a form impossible, by the weight of their concepts?
I
have often asked myself that question. It is, in fact, true that there
is no technique that can account for a character in a novel as one can
account for a real person, who has existed, by means of a Marxist or
psychoanalytic interpretation. But if an author has recourse to these
two systems within a novel, without an adequate formal device for doing
so, the novel disappears. These devices are lacking, and I do not know
if they are possible.
You think that the existence of Marxism and of psychoanalysis prevents any novelist from writing, so to speak, naïvely today?
By
no means. But if he does so, the novel will all the same be classified
as ‘naïve’. In other words, a natural universe of the novel will not
exist, only a certain specific type of novel—the ‘spontaneous’, ‘naïve’
novel. There are excellent examples of the latter, but the author who
writes them has to make a conscious decision to ignore these
interpretative techniques. Thereby he necessarily becomes less naïve.
There is another type of novel today in which the work is conceived as a
sort of infernal machine—fake novels like those of Gombrowicz for
example. Gombrowicz is aware of psychoanalysis, and of Marxism and many
other things, but he remains sceptical about them, and hence constructs
objects which destroy themselves in their very act of construction—
creating a model for what might be a novel with an analytic and
materialist foundation.
Why have you personally stopped writing novels?
Because
I have felt no urge to do so. Writers have always more or less chosen
the imaginary. They have a need for a certain ration of fiction. Writing
on Flaubert is enough for me by way of fiction—it might indeed be
called a novel. Only I would like people to say that it was a true
novel. I try to achieve a certain level of comprehension of Flaubert by
means of hypotheses. Thus I use fiction—guided and controlled, but
nonetheless fiction—to explore why, let us say, Flaubert wrote one thing
on the 15th March and the exact opposite on the 21st March, to the same
correspondent, without worrying about the contradiction. My hypotheses
are in this sense a sort of invention of the personage.
You have reproached a book like The Children of Sanchez for
not being a literary work because the people in it speak a language
like that of all of us when we are not writers. You think such works
lack invention?
The Children of Sanchez
is not a literary work, but it renders a mass of literary works
redundant. Why write a novel on its characters or their milieu? They
tell us much more by themselves, with a much greater self-understanding
and eloquence. The book is not literature because there is no quest for a
form that is also a meaning in it: for me the two—form and meaning—are
always linked. There is no production of an object, a constructed
object.
You continue to write plays?
Yes,
because plays are something else again. For me the theatre is
essentially a myth. Take the example of a petty-bourgeois and his wife
who quarrel with each other the whole time. If you tape their disputes,
you will record not only the two of them, but the petty-bourgeoisie and
its world, what society has made of it, and so on. Two or three such
studies and any possible novel on the life of a petty-bourgeois couple
would be outclassed. By contrast, the relationship between man and woman
as we see it in Strindberg’s Dance of Death will never be outclassed. The subject is the same, but taken to the level of myth. The playwright presents to men the eidos
of their daily existence: their own life in such a way that they see it
as if externally. This was the genius of Brecht, indeed. Brecht would
have protested violently if anyone said to him that his plays were
myths. Yet what else is Mother Courage—an anti-myth that despite itself becomes a myth?
You discussed the theatre with Brecht?
I
saw Brecht three or four times in a political context, but we never had
a chance to discuss the theatre. I admire Brecht’s plays very much, but
I think that what Brecht said about them is not always true. His theory
of Entfremdung—distanciation—is one thing: the actual
relationship between the public and his characters is another. The blind
and deaf girl in Mother Courage calls to the people when she
falls from the roof, dying. This is a scene of pathos, and yet it is
precisely a passage of the play where Brecht most wants to establish a
contestation and recoil from the drama. Mother Courage herself is an
anti-heroine who—unavoidably, by her very mystification—becomes a
heroine. The Caucasian Chalk Circle presents the same
paradox—scenes such as the flight of the servant or the adjudication of
the child, which despite all Brecht’s efforts are extremely moving in
the most classical tradition of the theatre. Brecht was tremendously
astute in his use of theatre, but he could not always control the final
result of his writing.
The Critique de la Raison Dialectique appears
to be constructed on the idea that there is a fundamental homogeneity
between the individual and history: the central theme of the book is the
reversible relationships—interversions—between the individual, worked matter, the group, the series, the practico-inert, collectives.
To adopt its vocabulary, your formal aim is to show how the totalising
acts of every individual are totalized in exteriority by others and
become other to their agents, just as groups become other to themselves through serialization. The Critique deals
in a very systematic way with that aspect of history which presents
itself as alienation and degradation of intentional projects, whether by individuals or groups, in their encounter with materiality and alterity, in the world of scarcity. There is, however, another aspect of history which is not accounted for by the Critique. Social facts are not simply a totalization in exteriority of the totalizing acts of a multiplicity of individuals and groups, which
may during certain privileged moments achieve an apocalyptic
sovereignty, but which normally fall into the practico-ineri. They have
an intrinsic order of their own, which is not deducible from the
criss-crossing of innumerable individual totalizations. The most obvious
example of this is language—which can in no way be described as a
simple totalization of all the speech-acts of linguistic agents. The
subject who speaks never totalizes linguistic laws by his words.
Language has its own intelligibility as a system which appears heterogeneous to the subject. Can the themes of ‘totalization’ and the ‘practico-inert’ ever account for the emergence of ordered social structures, not merely random alienation of subjective projects?
But
there is totalization in language. You cannot say a single sentence
which does not refer, by its elements, to opposites. Thereby the whole
of language, as a system of differential meanings, is present in its
very absence, as linguists themselves admit. Every sentence is a levy on
the entire resources of speech, for words only exist by their
opposition to each other. There is thus certainly totalization in
language.
The question is whether there is only totalization? There are two central examples in the Critique of
a multiplicity of totalizations which fall into the practico-inert and
become an alien power denaturing the intentions of their agents. One is
that of different Chinese peasants cutting down trees to enlarge their
cultivation of land, thus creating erosion, which thereby causes floods
which then ruin their lands. The other is of the impact of gold in 16th-century Spain—whereby
the individual decisions of each single producer to raise prices caused
an uncontrollable general inflation which eventually resulted in the
collective impoverishment of all of them. These two examples do not have
the same type of intelligibility—
I agree.
The deforestation of the Chinese peasants is a product of individuals,
each acting on their own, directly on nature, in ignorance of the
others. They are not united by any collective object, and it is only
gradually that the end-result of their acts imposes itself on them. The
counter-finality of these peasants is cultural, but it concerns above
all the relationship of a multiplicity of individuals with nature.
Whereas the impact of gold in Spain presupposes money, which is a social
institution. Money has nothing natural about it, it is a conventional
system in some ways very similar to language. Thus gold is a
preeminently social fact. I therefore am perfectly in agreement that
there is a specific reality of social facts. This reality implies
precisely that every totalization of the individual in relation to this
reality either fails, is deviated by it or is a negative totalization.
When I speak, I never say completely what I want to say and I often do
not know what I say, given that my words are robbed from me and revealed
to me as other than what I intended. But the important thing is that
these social facts are, in spite of everything, the product of the
social activity of collective ensembles. I will be discussing this in
the second volume of the Critique. Language exists only as a convention.
But where does the order of this convention come from? To ask the same question in a different way: by the end of the Critique the reader has been taken through all the different reversible relationships of individuals, groups, series and the practico-inert, which constitute for you ‘the formal elements of any history’. Yet
from this perspective there seems to be no reason why history should
not then be an arbitrary chaos of inter-blocking projects, a sort of
colossal traffic-jam?
There are a number of
reasons. The first is that accumulation exists. There are crucial
domains where accumulation occurs: science, capital, goods—which thereby
produce a history: change. This is something different from a mere
transition. There are periods which are transitions, until something is
invented that changes. For example, the whole feudal period of the 11th,
12th and 13th centuries is a perpetual turmoil: there were events
everywhere, yet there was no emergence from the Middle Ages because the
elements for doing so did not exist. Then, one day, a certain number of
processes coincided, social and economic facts like the indebtedness of
the lords, the ruin of the Church, the change in the nature of
Catholicism, the peasant revolts, scientific discoveries, and a spiral
development of history resulted. Science, of course, in a sense advanced
in a straight line through all its conversions, hesitations and errors.
These mistakes and confusions might be classified as ‘subjective’—they
have little importance in the development of science. On the other hand,
they whirl about every level of science and deform its discoveries and
practices, changing them into other than themselves: a discovery made
because of war in time of war will serve in peace, while a discovery in
time of peace will serve for war. Simultaneously, there are whole
plateaux where the class struggle changes because there is a new mode of
production. I have not discussed any of this in the first volume of the
Critique, both because I believe in the general schema provided
by Marx and because I intend to study it at the level of history proper.
For it is at the level of history that one should determine to what
extent there is or is not progress, to what extent progress exists only
where there is accumulation, and whether it produces in its train total
modifications which are not necessarily progressive.
What is going to be the architecture of the second volume of the Critique?
I will simply try to show the dialectical intelligibility of a movement of historical temporalization.
A movement?
The movement. The difference between the
first and second volume is this: the first is an abstract work where I
show the possibilities of exchange, degradation, the practico-inert,
series, collectives, recurrence and so on. It is concerned only with the
theoretical possibilities of their combinations. The object of the
second volume is history itself. But I know no other history than our
own, so the question ‘What is history?’ becomes ‘What is our
history?’—the history in which Mahomet was born and not one in which he
never lived. It is irrelevant to wonder whether there are other
histories in other galaxies. Perhaps there are, but we know nothing of
them, and they consequently have no importance for us. Thus all the
notions which will emerge from the second volume will be rigorously
applied to our own history; my aim will be to prove that there is a
dialectical intelligibility of the singular. For ours is a singular
history. It is determined by the forces of production and the relations
of production, their correspondences and their conflicts. It is possible
that in completely primitive societies there exist the ‘global facts’
of which Mauss speaks—a kind of undifferentiated social conditioning.
But even if this were so, it is not the history that I will be studying.
What I will seek to show is the dialectical intelligibility of that
which is not universalisable.
It is still very
difficult to see how a multiplicity of individual acts can ever give
birth to social structures which have their own laws, discontinuous from the acts which for you formally constitute a historical dialectic? A
tribe can speak a language for centuries and then be discovered by an
anthropologist who can decipher its phonological laws, which have been
forever unknown to the totality of the subjects speaking the language.
How can these objective laws be deduced merely from words spoken?
I
believe that all the same language is a totalized and detotalized
result of the ensemble of human activities during a certain time.
Language is imposed on each of us as a practico-inert.
The connotation of ‘practico-inert’ is
precisely that of a brute, random mass alien to human agents. The
problem is, how does this mass happen to have a rigorous structure—the laws of grammar or, more fundamentally, the relations of production? These structures are never intentional objects—they are heterogeneous to the historical acts of individuals?
There
is a historical problem of the passage from non-language to language in
early human communities: it is impossible to reconstruct this passage,
but probably it was accomplished within certain early institutions. For
language sustains institutions, institutions are a language, and
language is itself an institution. From the moment that a limited system
of signs exists, which has an institutional character, both invented by
the group and already dividing the group, language can change men into
collectives. I have tried to explain this in the Critique. An institution or collective object is always a product of the activity of the group in matter,
whether verbal matter or physicochemical matter, and is thereby sealed
and surpassed by an inertia which separates the group and imposes itself
on it as the instituted and sacred. The subjective here capsizes into
the objective and the objective into the subjective: the result is an
instituted object. Thus I am in complete agreement that social facts
have their own structures and laws that dominate individuals, but I only
see in this the reply of worked matter to the agents who work it.
Why is this ‘reply’ a coherent discourse?
For me the fact of being worked does not endow matter with a system, but the fact of becoming inert converts work into a system.
Not everything that is inert is a system.
Structures are created by activity which has no structure, but suffers its results as a structure.
How can individual acts result in ordered structures, and not a tangled labyrinth—unless you believe in a sort of pre-established harmony between them?
You
are forgetting the level of power and therefore of generality. If a
decision is taken at a certain level of political or religious power, an
objective unity is given by the project at that level. What then
happens is that others deviate and deform the project, but they
simultaneously create something else by their work: other structures
with their own internal relations which constitute a queer kind of
object, but a potent and significant one. In the last chapter of the Critique,
entitled ‘Towards History’, I started to discuss this problem. I tried
to argue that an object created by a plurality of different or
antagonistic groups is nevertheless, in the very moment of their shock
against each other, intelligible. In the second volume, I was going to
take the elementary example of a battle, which remains intelligible
after the confusion of the two armies engaged in combat in it. From
there I planned to develop a study of the objects constituted by entire
collectivities with their own interests. In particular, I want to
analyze the example of Stalin to see how the objects which constituted
Stalinist institutions were created through the ensemble of
relationships between groups and within groups in Soviet society, and
through the relationship of all these to Stalin and of Stalin to them.
Finally, I was going to end by studying the unity of objects in a
society completely rent asunder by class struggle, and considering
several classes and their actions to show how these objects were
completely deviated and always represented a detotalization while at the
same time preserving a determinate intelligibility. Once one has
reached this, one has reached history. Hence I had the embryo of an
answer to the question you have been asking me. There is an
institutional order which is necessarily—unless we are to believe in God
the father or an organicist mythology—the product of masses of men
constituting a social unity and which at the same time is radically
distinct from all of them, becoming an implacable demand and an
ambiguous means of communication and non-communication between them.
Aesop once said that language is both. The same is true of institutions.
Indeed, I would like to write a study of work and technology to show
exactly what happens to material in industry, how it becomes an inhuman
image of man, by its demands. For I believe that the existence of
different ethics in different epochs is due to matter: it is because of
inert, inanimate objects that there are demands in us. A demand is fixed
and inert: a duty has no life in it, it is always immobile and
imbecile, because whenever anyone tries to do his so-called duty, he
always finds himself in opposition to others. This contradiction
ultimately derives from the demands of materiality in us. To sum up what
I have been saying in a sentence: my aim in the second volume of the Critique was precisely a study of the paradoxical object which is an institutional ensemble that is perpetually detotalized.
There is another dimension of the Critique which
must be striking for any new reader of it today. The book in some
respects appears an anticipation of two of the major historical events
of recent ears, the May Revolt in France and they Cultural devolution in
China. There are long analyses of the dialectical relationship between
class, cadres, trade-unions and political party during factory
occupations, taking 1936 as a model, which often seem to prefigure the trajectory of the French proletariat in May 1968. At
the same time, there is a passage where you evoke the official parades
in Tien An Minh Square in the Pekin of the early sixties as a sort of
pyramidal ‘mineralization of man’, whereby a bureaucratic
order manipulates dispersed series beneath it to confer on them a false
semblance of groups. Do you then today interpret the Cultural Revolution
as an attempt to reverse the deterioration of the Chinese Revolution
into a set of bureaucratically institutionalized groups manipulating
passive masses, by a sort of gigantic ‘apocalypse’ throughout China which recreates ‘fused groups’ such as once made the Long March and the People’s War—to use the language of the Critique?
I
should say that I regard myself as very inadequately informed about the
Cultural Revolution. The specific level of the phenomenon is that of
ideology, culture and politics—in other words, superstructures which are
the higher instances of any dialectical scale. But what happened at the
level of infrastructures in China which led to the initiation of this
movement in the superstructures? There must have been determinate
contradictions at the base of the Chinese socialist economy which
produced the movement for a return to something like a perpetual fused
group. It is possible that the origins of the Cultural Revolution are to
be found in the conflicts over the Great Leap Forward, and the
investment policies undertaken at that time: Japanese Marxists have
often maintained this. But I nevertheless must confess that I have not
succeeded in understanding the causes of the phenomenon in its totality.
The idea of a perpetual apocalypse is naturally very attractive—but I
am convinced that it is not exactly this, and that the infrastructural
reasons for the Cultural Revolution must be sought.
You do not think that the Sino-Soviet conflict was a crucial
determinant? Part of the Chinese leadership appears to have consciously
been determined to avoid any reproduction of the present state of the
USSR in China. Is it necessary to assume insurmountable contradictions
within the Chinese economy to explain the Cultural Revolution?
I certainly do not think that the Cultural
Revolution is in any way a mechanical reflection of infrastructural
contradictions: but I think that to understand its total meaning one
should be able to reconstruct the precise moment of the historical
process and of the economy at which it exploded. It is perfectly clear,
for instance, that Mao was virtually marginalized for a certain time and
that he has now reassumed power. This change is undoubtedly linked to
internal Chinese conflicts, which go back at least to the Great Leap
Forward.
Equally striking are the contradictions
within the Cultural Revolution. There is a central discordance between
the unleashing of mass initiatives and the cult of the leader. On the
one side, there is the perpetual maintenance of the fused group with
unlimited personal initiatives within it, with the possibility of
writing anything in big-character posters, even ‘Chou En Lai to the
gallows’— which did, in fact happen in Pekin; on the other side, there
is the fetichization of the little red book, read aloud in waiting
rooms, in airplanes, in railway stations, read before others who repeat
it in chorus, read by taxi-drivers who stop their cab to read it to
passengers—a hallucinating collective catechism which resounds from one
end of China to the other.
Your own analysis of the fundamental reason for the degradation of groups into series in the Critique is
that scarcity ultimately renders inevitable the fall of any collective
project into the practico-inert. China remains a very poor country, with
a low level of development of productive forces. Your own account of
the reign of scarcity leads to the conclusion that it is impossible to
abolish bureaucracy in such a country; any attempt to overcome
bureaucratic degradation of the revolution will inevitably be profoundly
marked by the objective limits imposed by scarcity. This line of
argument would explain the bureaucratic safety-rails, whether
institutional like the army or ideological like the cult of personality,
which trammel mass initiative in China?
It is
evident that completely untrammelled initiatives can lead to a sort of
madness. Because the free and anarchic development of the individual
—not the social individual of the future, but the free practical
organism of today—may not endanger his own reason, but can endanger a
society. But to insist on his total freedom within a fused group and at
the same time to put pebbles in his head, called the Thoughts of Mao, is
not to create a whole man. The two halves of the process are in
complete contradiction.
Perhaps the paradox of a cultural revolution is that it is
ultimately impossible in China, where it was invented, but is somewhat
more possible in the advanced countries of the West?
I think that is correct. With one qualification: is a cultural revolution possible without making the
revolution? French youth during May wanted a cultural revolution—what
was missing for them to achieve one? The ability to make a real
revolution. In other words, a revolution which is no way initially
cultural, but is the seizure of power by violent class struggle. Which
is not to say that the idea of cultural revolution in France was merely a
mirage: on the contrary, it expressed a radical contestation of every
established value of the university and society, a way of looking at
them as if they had already perished. It is very important that this
contestation be maintained.
What were the main lessons of the May Revolt for you?
I have always been convinced that the origins of
May lie in the Vietnamese Revolution. For the French students who
unleashed the process of May, the Vietnamese war was not merely a
question of taking the side of the National Liberation Front or the
people or Vietnam against us imperialism. The fundamental impact of war on European or us
militants was its enlargement of the field of the possible. It had
previously seemed impossible that the Vietnamese could resist
successfully such an enormous military machine and win. Yet that is what
they did and by doing so they completely changed the horizon of French
students, among others: they now knew that there were possibilities that
remained unknown. Not that everything was possible, but that one can
only know something is impossible once one has tried it and failed. This
was a profound discovery, rich in its eventual consequences and
revolutionary in the West.
Today, over a year
later, it is clear that to a certain extent we have discovered the
impossible. In particular, as long as the French Communist Party is the
largest conservative party in France, and as long as it has the
confidence of the workers, it will be impossible to make the free
revolution that was missed in May. Which only means that it is necessary
to pursue the struggle, however protracted it may be, with the same
persistence as the Vietnamese, who after all are continuing to fight and
continuing to win.
May was not a revolution: it did not destroy the bourgeois state.
To make the revolution next time, organization will be necessary to
co-ordinate and lead the struggle. What sort of political organization
do you judge to be the appropriate instrument today?
It is obvious that anarchism leads nowhere, today
as yesterday. The central question is whether in the end the only
possible type of political organization is that which we know in the
shape of the present CP’s: hierarchical division between leadership and
rank-and-file, communications and instructions proceeding from above
downwards only, isolation of each cell from every other, vertical powers
of dissolution and discipline, separation of workers and intellectuals?
This pattern developed from a form of organization which was born in
clandestinity in the time of the Tsars. What are the objective
justifications of its existence in the West today? Its purpose here
appears merely to ensure an authoritarian centralism which excludes any
democratic practice. Of course, in a civil war situation, a militarized
discipline is necessary. But does a proletarian party have to resemble
the present-day Communist Parties? Is it not possible to conceive of a
type of political organization where men are not barred and stifled?
Such an organization would contain different currents, and would be
capable of closing itself in moments of danger, to reopen thereafter.
It
is always true, of course, that to fight something one must change
oneself into it; in other words one must become its true opposite and
not merely other than it. A revolutionary party must necessarily
reproduce—up to a certain limit—the centralization and coercion of the
bourgeois state which it is its mission to overthrow. However, the whole
problem—the history of our century is there to prove it—is that once a
party dialectically undergoes this ordeal, it may become arrested there.
The result is then that it has enormous difficulty in ever escaping
from the bureaucratic rut which it initially accepted to make the
revolution against a bureaucratic-military machine. From that moment on,
only a cultural revolution against the new order can prevent a
degradation of it. It is not a benevolent reform that is occurring in
China today, it is the violent destruction of a whole system of
privilege. Yet we know nothing of what the future will be in China. The
danger of a bureaucratic deterioration will be powerfully present in any
Western country, if we succeed in making the revolution: that is
absolutely inevitable, since both external imperialist encirclement and
the internal class struggle will continue to exist. The idea of an
instant and total liberation is a utopia. We can already foresee some of
the limits and constraints of a future revolution. But he who takes
these as an excuse not to make the revolution and who fails to struggle
for it now, is simply a counter-revolutionary.
Abroad, you are often seen as classical product of French
university culture. The university system in which you were educated and
made your early career, was the exact target of the first explosion
which set off the upheaval of May. What is your judgment of it now?
It is certainly true that I am a product of this
system, and I am very aware of it: although I hope I am not only that.
When I was a student, only a very small elite got to university, and if
one had the additional ‘luck’ to get into the Ecole Normale, one had
every material advantage. In a sense the French university system
formed me more than its professors, because in my time the latter, with
only one or two exceptions, were very mediocre. But the system, above
all the Ecole Normale, I accepted as absolutely natural: son and
grandson of petty-bourgeois intellectuals, it never occurred to me to
question it. The lectures of the cours magistral seemed idiotic
to us, but only because the teachers who gave it had nothing to tell us.
Later, others saw that the lecture course itself was irredeemable. We
merely abstained from ever going to the Sorbonne: only once, when law
students threatened to invade it, did we go to the lectures
there—otherwise never. Most of the Ecole Normale students of my time
were very proud if they became agregés, for instance (although there were a few who thought the hierarchy of agregés and licenciés
was monstruous). Nizan was an exception, of course. He detested the
Ecole Normale, for very good reasons—its class function in creating a
privileged élite. Although he was academically ‘successful’, he never,
never fitted into the system. By the third year he was in such a state
of malaise that he escaped to Aden. Of course, this was related to
neurotic problems in his personal history, but the fundamental fact was
that he could not breathe within these institutions designed to
perpetuate a monopoly of knowledge.
What is your view of a correct Marxist practice within the institutions of bourgeois culture—the educational system—after May?
Is
a positive revolutionary culture conceivable today? For me, this is the
most difficult problem posed by your question. My frank opinion is that
everything within bourgeois culture that will be surpassed by a
revolutionary culture will nevertheless ultimately also be preserved by
it. I do not believe that a revolutionary culture will forget Rimbaud,
Baudelaire or Flaubert, merely because they were very bourgeois and not
exactly friends of the people. They will have their place in any future
socialist culture, but it will be a new place determined by new
needs and relations. They will not be great principal values, but they
will be part of a tradition reassessed by a different praxis and a
different culture.
But how can they be reassessed
today, when a revolutionary culture does not exist? They have only one
place within existing society—the site assigned to them by bourgeois
culture. What is the ‘correct use’ of Rimbaud for a young socialist
militant in Vincennes or Nanterre? The question is unanswerable. It is
true that a certain number of university intellectuals of an older
generation became revolutionaries within a society that dispensed this
culture to them. But the situation has changed radically since then. To
take only the material conditions of a university education: in my time
an orthodox lecture course was trundled out to perhaps 15 or 20 people.
It was less shocking, because it could formally be contested: a student
could interrupt and say he disagreed, and the lecturer would tolerate
this because it hid the completely authoritarian character of the whole
course. Today, there are 100 or 200 students where there were once 15.
There is no longer any chance of this. Where it was once possible to
turn bourgeois culture against itself, showing that Liberty, Equality
and Fraternity had become their opposites, today the only possibility is
to be against bourgeois culture. For the traditional system is
collapsing. The Baccalaureat in France is something incredible, in its
antiquation. In Rouen-Le Havre recently, the subject of the philosophy
paper was: ‘Epictetus said to a disciple: “Live Hidden”. Comment’. Can
you imagine—giving a question like that to school-children of sixteen in
this day and age! Not only the reference is outrageous, of course, 10
per cent to 20 per cent of the candidates thought that Vis Caché (Live Hidden) was Vices Caches
(Hidden Vices), imagining perhaps that this was ancient orthography,
and interpreted the quotation to mean: ‘Hide your Vices’. They then
developed at length the idea of Epictetus along the lines ‘If you have
vices, satisfy them, but secretly.’ The funniest, and saddest thing of
all is that they approved the formula of Epictetus! ‘For it is like that
in society, one can have a vice, but one should practise it in
solitude.’ Innocent answers, showing what bourgeois morality is in fact
like; pitiful answers because these pupils obviously thought, ‘Epictetus
must be famous, if I criticize him I might get 4 out of 20 and fail,
the only thing to do is to agree with him.’ There is no relationship, no
contact whatever between these young people and their teachers.
Bourgeois culture in France is destroying itself. Thus for the moment,
regardless of the eventual future, I believe that a radical negation of
the existing culture is the only possible option for young militants—a
negation which will often take the form of violent contestation.
Are you going to write sequel to Les Mots? What are your future plans?
No, I do not think that a sequel to Les Mots would be of much interest. The reason why I produced Les Mots
is the reason why I have studied Genet or Flaubert: how does a man
become someone who writes, who wants to speak of the imaginary? This is
what I sought to answer in my own case, as I sought it in that of
others. What could there be to say of my existence since 1939? How I
became the writer who produced the particular works I have signed. But
the reason why I wrote La Nausée rather than some other book is
of little importance. It is the birth of the decision to write that is
of interest. Thereafter, what is equally interesting are the reasons why
I was to write exactly the contrary to what I wanted to write. But this
is another subject altogether— the relationship of a man to the history
of his time. Thus what I will write one day is a political testament.
The title is perhaps a bad one, since a testament implies the idea of
giving advice; here it will simply be the end of a life. What I would
like to show is how a man comes to politics, how he is caught by them,
and how he is remade other by them; because you must remember that was
not made for politics, and yet I was remade by politics so that I
eventually had to enter them. It is this which is curious. I will
recount what I did politically, what mistakes I committed, and what
resulted from it. In doing so, I will try to define what constitutes
politics today, in our own phase of history.
Interviewers P.A., R.F., Q.H.