EMMANUELLEVINAS CriticalAssessmentsof LeadingPhilosophers Edited by ClaireKatzwithLaraTrout VolumeI Lel'inas,PhenomenologyandHis Critics ; ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ p LONDON AND NEW YORK FirstpublisllCd2005 byRoutloogc 2I'al'kSquare,MiltonPark,Abingdon, Oxon.OXI4 4RN Simullanl'Quslypublishedin[heUSAamiCanada hyRoutledge 29West35thStreet.NewYork.NY10001 Rout/fllg" iI' animprintTa,Vt",.& Franell'(;/'(IUp EditorialMatter andSelection 2005ClaireKatz;indh'idual ownersrctain copyrightintheir ownrnalerinl Type...,linTimesbyGrnphicranLimited.HongKong PrintedandboundinnrcalRl'ilalllh_

'00052049" 194 trr612005I.c. rinte.101 ,ronic. after inallY lissionin 'IJ .vsu ....I I\nLl'h"UV\J6.l::I"'"U4UJ ...."U"Iun,..n'itts.hLjhral'Y Library (1' COJlg,!!"',,CUIa/"l!.iJrXinPl/b/i(,l1/ionO(lttl ISBNOAIS1\(149-0 (Sct) ISUNU--415-310512(VolullleI) J'Ublisher'sNote Ilc:lcrcnceswithinCHehcllaplcr arcastheyappearinIhe originalcompletework CONTENTS Acknowledgements Chronologicaltableof reprinted articles and chapters Ahbre"ilJlions VOLUMEILEVINAS,PHENOMENOLOGYAND HISCRITICS xiii xvii xxv Introoudion:IntroducingLevinas1 Levinas's skepticalcritique of metaphysicsand 7 PETERA TTERTON 2RereadingTotflijtyand lIifini". ROIIl:R1'UliRNASCONI 3Thethirdparty:I..evinason the intersedion of theethical andthepolitlad ItolJERTBERNASCONI 4Our clandestine companion MAURICEIiLANCHOT 5Theriddleof thepn.'-Original FAlIlOCIARAMELU 6II YIIboldingLevinas's handtoRlanchot's fire SIMONCRITCHLEY 7Violenceandmetaphysics:an essayontbethoughtof I':mmanuclLevinas JACQUESDJ:JOlIDA 8Attbisverymomentillthi!!"'ork hel'e1 am JACQUESDI!1l1UDA v 32 45 58 67 75 88 174 CONTENTS 9Ethicsandontology: somehypocriticalreflections JEANGREISCH 10The fecundityof the caress:areading of Levinas.Totality and Infinity,sectionIV,D,'llIe Phenomenologyof Eros' UJCEIRIGARA Y IILevinas'notion of the"there is" PIIILlPLAWTON 12The elementalimperative ALPHONSOLlNGIS 13Levina.,;'logic JEAN-fRANcnida, andotbers ,js-ai-,is JOHNLLEWELYN 35The Ii'itening eye:Nietl.sche andLevinas JlRIA NSCHROEDER 36Breaking theclosedcircle:LevinasIntelPlatonic puideiu ORlANSCIfIUJEI))';R 37Kant,Le"inas,andthethought01"the "other" JEREPAULSUR8ER VII 145 161 175 195 241 250 270 285 296 CONTENTS 38Levinas,Kierkegaanl.andthe theologicallask MEROLDWESTPHAL 39Themoralself:Emmanuell.evinas andHermann Cohen EDITHWYSCHOGROD VOLUMEIIILEVIN ASANDTHEQUESTION OF RELIGION Acknowledgement., Introduction:Levinas,Judaism aodreUgion:the unlikely matchbetweenphilosophyandreligion 40Dependencyandvilinerability:.Jewishand feminist existentialist constructionsof thehuman LEORABATNITZKY 41The ethics of suspicion ROBERTBERNASCONI 42Tile messianicutopia CATHERINECHALIER 43Levinasandtheparadox of moootheism RICHARDA.COHEN 44Rrismila. desire andLevina... RICHARI>A.COHllN 45Pltilosophlesof religion:Marcel,Ja.4Jpers.Levinas WIIJ-'AMDESMOND 46JudaismandHellenisminthephilosophyof LeviDIlS andlIeidegger THEODOREUP.HOER 41colL'icleDl'C.nodcomciollsnes.'J:(':mmanuel Levinas.theHolocaustandthe logicof wilnes.'i SANDORGOODHART 48Substihltion:Marcel andLevinas ROIlERTH.(jIllH!) 49"'acing theother:l..evinas,Perelman and SUSANIIANI>Jo:LMAN viii 325 347 vii I 5 29 44 59 72 80 121 132 153 167 CONTENTS 50From eros tomaternity:love,death,and 'the feminine' inthe philosophyof EmmanuelLevinas CLAIREEUSHKATZ 51Love and justice:Levinu' reading of Buber PIIILIPN.LAWTON,JR. 52Fromphenomenologyto liberation:the displacement of history 190 212 andtheologyinLevinas'sTotality tuU/ Infinity220 JACORMESKIN 53Jewish existenceandphilosophy ADRIAANPEPERZAK 54'He' (i1) JACQUESROLLAND 55Questioning the sacred:l I e i d e ~ randLevinas onthe locus 242 253 of divinity282 SONIASIKKA 56Philosophyandinspiration:Chalier'stevinas MICHAELB.SMITH 57lbe revelation of theHolyOther asthewhollyother: betweenBarth's theologyof theWordandI,evinas's philosophyof Saying GRAHAMWARI) 58ElRmanuelLevinasandthe problem of religiouslanguage EDITHWYSCIIO(lROD VOL.UMEIVI..EVINAS,POLITICSANDBEYOND A ck,ww[edgeml'll/.\' Introduction:Whois the other? MovingbeyondLevinas's ethics 59Wbo ismyneighbor?Who istbeOther?:Questioning 'the generosityof Westernthought' ROIJllRTRlikNASCONJ 60Levin .....DanielWebster,andus:radicalresponsibilityand 308 316 339 vii 5 theproblem of evil31 JEFFREYHLOECIIL ix CONTENTS 61Violenceand the vulnerable faceof the other:the vision of EmmanuelLevinas on moraleviland our responsibility49 ROGERBURGGRAEVE 62Hyperbolic JIBtice:deconstruction, myth,and politics67 JOHND.CAPUTO 63Levina.o;'spolitical judgement:theEsprit articles1934-1983 85 HOWARDCAYGILL 64OntologicaldUference,sexual difference,andtime101 TINACHAN'fIiR 65Post-structuralism,tbe ethicalrelation,andthelaw136 DRUCILLACORNELL 66Facing nature:Levinasbeyondthehuman176 CHRISTIANDIEHM 67The possibilityof an ethicalpolitics:frompeace toliturgy188 JOHNDRABINSK.I 68Nameless memory:l.evinas,witnessandpolitics213 JAWP.SHATLEY 69Is liberalism"all we,teed,,?l.evinas'spolitics of sllrpllls235 ANNABELHERZOG 70Reinhabitingthehouse of Ruth:exceedingthelimits of thefeminineinLevinas259 CLAIREELISEKATZ 71AmI obsessedbyBobby? (Humanism or the otheranimal)283 JOHNLLEWELYN 72"ThInkingthe Other witfloutvioleoce?An analysis of the relation betweenthephilosophyof Emmanuel andfeminism296 ROiIERfJOHNSIil!FFI,ERMANNING 73Fatherhood andthepromise of ethics307 KI:LL.YOLIVER 74A singular justice: etbks andpoliticsbetweenLe"lnas lIod Derrldll325 DlANIl1'llRPICH 75Repeating the parricIde:I.c"inas andthequestion of closure343 JOHNPROTEVI X CONTENTS 76Aesthetictotalityandethical infinity:Levlnas on art356 JILLROBBINS 77Writingas aman:Levinas andthephenomenologyof Eros369 STELLASANDFORD 78F a c e l ~womenandserious others:Lel'ina.'\,misogyny, andfeminism388 CRAIGR.VASEY 79Traumatic respon.w:Levinas'slegacy400 TINACHANTER 80Adieu414 JACQUESDERRIDA 81/" memoriamEmmanuelLevina...41:7 PAULRICOElIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Aprojectof thismagnitude simplycannotbedonealone.Iwouldliketo thankNatalieFoster,JenniferLoveland:loOt!Botterill,theeditonwith whomIworkedatRoutledge/Taylor&Francisfortheireditorialadvice and their excellent sleuthing skills when information was needed.Natalie and Jennifer helped getthisproject oft' thegroundandZoe saw it to its comple-tion.I greatly appreciated her meticulous examination of the contents, making surewehadproperlyobtainedthepermissionsnecessarytopublishthe piecesIhad collected. ThisprojectwasgenerouslyfundedbytheResearchandGraduate StudiesOfficcintheCollegeof LiberalArtsatPennStateUniversity.I thankRayLombra,AssociateDean,andthecommitteethatmadethis fundingpossible.ThisfundingenabledmetohireLaraTrout,agraduate student inthephilosophy department, as aresearchassistantwhoturned out to bemorethan aresearchassistant.This projectwouldhave certainly failedwithoutherhelp.Shewasnot simplysomeonewho'helped';rather, herorganizational skills, sleuthing abilityand goodhumour actuallymade the completion of thisproject both possible and bearable. She became a real collaboratorandIamgratefulforhercompanyalongtheway(Iamnot sureshe can saythe same!).The Dean of the college of Liberal Arts,Susan Welch. my former interim head, Charles Scon, and my current head, Mitchell Aboulafia,supportedmyteachingleavefortheFall2003semester.This leave affordedmethelimetoticup loose endsand completethewriting of theintroductory essays. I wouldalso liketo thankLenLawlor andRettinil8crgo for contributing originalmanuscriptstothiscollection.IofTel'aspecialthankstoBettina andtoPeter AHertonfor suggestions on essays to include inthis collection. Finally,thanks gotomyfamilyDanConwayandour daughter Olivia fortheirpatienceand goodhumour asI completedthisproject. Thepublisherswouldliketothankthefollowingforpermissiontoreprint their material: xiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DePaulUniversityforpermissiontoreprintPeterAtterton,'Lcvinas's Skeptical Critique of Metaphysics andAmi-Humanism'.PhilosophyToe/ay, 41,4,1997,pp.491-506. StateUniversity of NewYorkforpermissiontoreprintRobertBernasconi, 'Rereading Totulity and /1!finity',inA.Dallery and C.Scott (eds)111(.'Ques-tionof theOlher;EssaysinContemporaryContinentalPhilosoph}'(Albany: State University of New YorkPress,1989),pp.23-34. Reprinted bypermis-sionfromTheQuestionof theOther:EssaysinContemporaryContinelllal Philosophy,editedbyArleenB.DalleryandCharlesE.Scott,theState Universityof NewYorkPress.1989State of NewYork.All rightsreserved. Jackson Publishing forpermission toreprintRobertBernasconi, 'The Third Party:LevillasontheIntersectionof theEthicalandthePolitical',Journal of theBritishSociety forPhenomenology.30,I,1999,pp.76-87. StateUniversityofNewYorkPressforpermissiontoreprintMaurice Dlanchot,'Our Clandestine Companion'inR.A.Cohen(ed.)FacetoFace with Levinas (Albany: State University of NewYork Press,1986), pp. 41-50. Reprinted bypermissionfrom10FacewilliLevinas, editedbyRichard A.Cohen,the StateUniversity of NewYorkPres..,.CJ1986 State University of NewYork.Allright!>reserved. Taylor&Francis,Inc.forpermissiontoreprintFabioCiaramelli,'The Riddle of thePre-original',in Adriaan Peperzak (ed.)Ethics asFirstPhilos-ophy:TheSignificanceof EmmanuelLel'ina.\' forPhilosophy,Literatureand Religion(New York:Routledge,1995),pp.87-94.Copyright 1995from HthiesasFirstPhilosophy byAdriaanPepcrzak.Reproducedbypermission of Routledge/Taylor & Francis,Inc. Taylor &Francis forpermissiontoreprint Simon Critchley, '1/ ya - Hold-ingLevinlls'sHand to Blanchot's Fire', in c.B. Gill (00.)MauriceB/(llIdlOt: TheDemalld of Writing(London:Routledge,1996).pp.10822. Taylor&Francis,Universityof ChicagoPressandJacquesDerridafor toreprintJacquesDerrida,'ViolenceandMelaphysics:An EssayontheThoughtofEmmanuelLevinas',translatedbyAlanBass, inWritingandDifFerence(Chicago:Universityof Chierridaforpermission toreprintJacquesDerrida,'AtthisverymomentinthisworkhereI am',translatedbyRubenBerezdivin,inR.BernasconiandS.Critchley (cds)Re-readingul'inm(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,J991), pp.11-48. Originally publishedinFrench as 'En ce momemt meme dans eet ouvrage mevoici',inTextes pour Emmanuel Levinas, cd.F.Laruclle(Paris: XIV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS lean-Michel Place,1980) and reprinted in Psyche:Inventions deI'autr(' (Paris, Galilee,1987). Irish JournalforpermissiontoreprintleanGreisch,'Ethics andOntology:SomeHypocriticalReflections',IrishPhilosophical Journal, 4,1987,pp.64-75. CornellUniversityPressandContinuumInternationalPublishingGroup forpermissiontoreprintLuceIrigamy,'TheFecundityof theCaress:A Readingof Lcvinas,TotalityandInfinity,sectionIV,B,"ThePhenomen-ologyof Eros''',inAnEthicsof translatedbyCarolyn Burke and Gillian Gill(Ithaca: CornellUniversityPress,1993),pp.231-57. Usedbypermissionof thepublisher,CornellUniversityPressandCon-tinuumInternationalPublishing Group,London,UK. TheMissionariesofthePreciousBloodforpermissiontoreprintPhilip Lawton,'Levinas'Notionofthe"ThereIs"',TijdschriftI'oorFiloso/ie, 37,3,1975,pp.477-89.It wasreprintedinPhilosophyToday,20,I(1976). 67-76. BrillAcademicPublishersforpermissiontoreprintAlphonsoLingis.'The ElementalImperative',Research;nPhenomenology.18,1988,pp.3-21. State University of New York Press fol'permission toreprint lean-Frantrois Lyotard.'Levinas'Logic',inR.A.Cohen(ed.)FacetoFacewithLevinas (Albany:State University of NewYorkPress,1986),pp.117-58.Reprinted bypermissionfromFacetoFaceHlilhLevinas, editedby Richard A.Cohen, theStateUniversityor NewYorkPress.C,1986StateUniversityof New York.Allrightsreserved. GraclualeFacultyPhilosophyJournalforpermissiontoreprintlean-Luc Marion, 'A Note Concerning the OntologicallndiITerencc'.Graduate Faculty Pllilm'ophy Journal, edited byBettina Bergo andDiane Perpich, 20(2)--21(1), 1998,pp.25-40. GraduateFacu/tyPhilosophyJourna/forpermissiontoreprintStephane Moses,'EmmanuelLevinas:Ethics asPrimaryMeaning',GraduateFaCilIty Philo.mph)' Jou",al. editedbyBettina Bergo andDiane Perpich. 20(2)- 21(1), 1998,pp.13-24. BrillAcademicPublishersforpermissiontoreprintAdriaanPeperzak. 'Lcvinas'Method',Re.fearc'hinPhenomenology,28,1998,pp.110-25. BrillAcademicPublishcI1IforpermissiontoreprintJohnSallis,'Levinas andtheElemental',ResearchinPhenomenology,28,1998,pp.1529. KluwerAcademicPublishersforpermissiontoreprintRudiVisker,'Dis-possessed:HowtoRemainSilent"after"Levinas',ManandWorld,29, 1996,pp.119-46.Withkindpermissionof KluwerAcademic Publishers. xv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS KluwerAcademicPublishersforpemlissiontoreprintNormanWirzba, 'From Maieutics to Metanoia: Levinas's Understanding of the Philosophical Task',ManandWor/d,28,1995,pp.129-44.Withkindpermissionof Kluwer Academic Publishers. MoutondeGruyerforpermissiontoreprintEdithWyschogrod,'From EthicstoLanguage: TheImperative of the Other',Semiotica,97,112,1993, pp.163-76. DePaulUniversityforpermissiontoreprintEwaP1onowskaZiarek,'The Rhetoricof FailureandDeconstruction',PhilosophyToday,40,I.1996. pp.80-90. Di'iclaimer The publishers have made every effort to contact authors/copyright holders of worksreprintedinEmmanuelLevinas:CriticalAssessmentsof Leading Philosophers.This has not been possible in every case. however. and wewould welcome correspondencefromthoseindividuals/companieswhomwehave beenunabletotrace. XVI Chronological Tableof ReprintedArticlesandChapters DateAuthorArticle/chapterReferencesVol.Chap. 1967JacquesViolence and metaphysics:an essayonJ.Derrida,Writingand Difference.tf.Alan7 Derridathe thought of Emmanuel LevinasBass,Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press, 1978. pp.79-153. Originally publishedas .L'ecnture e tfadifference (") 1972EdithEmmanuel Levinas and the problem ofTheThornist36( I}:1-38III58::c Wyschogrodreligiouslanguage ,., 0 1975PhilipLevinas'notion of the"there is"TijdschrjftvoorFilosojie37(3):477-89.11 z LawtonReprinted inPhilosophyToday20(1)(1976): 0 67-76 t"" >< Caputoa nd poIi tics n > 1991JohnAm IobsessedbyBobby'?(Humanism ofR.BernasconiandS.Critchley(eds)IV71 t"" Llewelyntheother animal)Re-readingLe}'inas,Bloomington: -l IndianaUniversityPress,pp,234-45 > 1991RobertJohnThinking the Other withoutviolence?TheJournal of SpeculativePhilosoph}-'5(2):IV72= ShefflerAn analysis of the relationbetweenthe132-43 r !!! Manningphilosophyof EmmanuelUvinas and feminism 1992RobertWhoismyneighbor? Who isthe Other?R.Bernasconi, Ethicsand Responsibility illIV59 BernasconiQuestioning 'the generosity of WesternthePhenomenological Tradition,Pittsburgh: thought'Simon SilvermanPhenomenology Center, Duquesne University,pp.1-31 1992John ProteviRepeating theparricide:Levinas and theJournal of theBrilishSociety forIV75 question of closurePhenomenology23(1):21-32 Cllronnlogit'8) Table cootlnllt'd DateAUlhorArlit:lelchaplerReferencesVolCIuJp. 1992Craig R.Faceless women and serious others:A.B.Dallery and C.E.Scott (eds).withIV78 VaseyLevinas,misogyny,and feminismP.H.Roberts,Ethics and Danger:Essayson Heideggerand ContinentalThought,Albany: State University of New YorkPress, pp.317-30 1992Mero!dLevinas,Kierkegaard,andthe theologicalModernTheology8(3):241-61II38 Westphaitask n :c 1993GrahamThe revelation of the Holy Other as theModernTheology9(2):159-80III57 := Wardwholly other:betweenBarth's theology of0 theWord andLevinas's philosophy of Z Saying 0 r 1993EdithFrom ethics to language:the imperativeSemiorica 97(1/2):163-76200 ~ Wyschogrodof the Other 0 -1994- WilliamPhilosophies of religion:Marcel, Jaspers,R.Kearney(ed.).RoulledgeHistoryofIII45('l DesmondLevinasPhilosophy,vol.VIII:Twentieth-century >-Continental Philosophy,London: Routledge. r -l pp.131-74 >-1994- Jere PaulKant.Levi.nas,and the thought of thePhilosophyToday38(3) (Fall):294-316n37 = Surber"other" r r'!l 1995FabioThe riddle of the pre-originalA.Peperzak(ed.)Ethics asFirstPhilosophy:I5 CiaramelliTheSignificance of Emmanuel Levinas for Philo.vophy.Literature and Religion,New York:Routledge.pp.87-94 1995JillRobbinsAesthetictotality and ethical infinity:L'EspritCrealeur35(3):66-79IV76 Levinason art 1995NormanFrom maieutics to metanoia:Levinas'sManandWorld 28:129-4419 Wirzbaunderstanding of the philosophicaltask 1996SilviaBensoLevinas - another asceticpriest?Journalof theBritishSociety forII22 Phenomenology27(2):137-56 1996SimonII yQ- boldingLevinas'shandtoC.B.Gill(ed.)MauriceBlanclwt:The6 CritchleyBlanchot's tireDemand of Writing,London: Routledge, pp.l08-22 1996StevenAutonomy and alterity: moral obligationJournal of theBritishSociety forII28 Hendleyin S&rtreandLevinasPhenomenology 27(3):246-66 1996PaulInmcmorfan1:EmmanuelLevinasPhilosophyToday 40(3):331-3IV81 Ricoeur 1996RudiViskcrDis-possessed:bow to remain silentManandWorld 29:119-4618 'after' Levinas 1996EwaThe rhetoric of failureand deconstructionPhilosophyToday40(1):80-9021 n P1onowska = Ziarck:::a 1997PeterLevinas's skeptical critique ofPhilosophyToday 41(4):491-506 0 z Attertonmetaphysics and anti-humanism 0 1997TinaTraumatic response:Levinas's legacyPhilosophyToday41,supplement:19-27IV79r-Chanter 0 S.1997JacquesAdieuJ.Derrida,Adieu10EmmanuelLevinas,IV80 0 Derridatr.Pascale-AnneBrault and Michael Nass, n Stanford, Calif.:Stanford University Press, > t'" 1999.pp.1-13. Originally published as ... Adieu Ii Emmonue/ LevintlS.Editions Galilee > 1997Ze'evLevyHermann Cohen and EmmanuelLevinasS.Moses andH.Wiedebach (cds),HermannII33 = r-Cohen'JPhilosophy of Religion,Hildcsheim:I!l Georg Olms,pp.133-43 1997KellyOliverFatherhood and thepromiseof ethicsDiacriricl'27(1): 45-57IV73 1997AdriaanJewish existence and philosophyA.Peperzak.,Beyond:ThePhilosophyIII53 Peperzakof Emmanuel winas, Evanston,Ill.: NorthwesternUniversity Press.pp.7-17 1997MichaelB.Philosophy and inspiration:Chalier'sBulletillde/aSociJre dem56 SmithLevinasPhilo.sophiedelAngue9(1) (Spring):22-30 1998JeffreyUvinas,Daniel Webster, and us:radicalInternationalPhilosophical Quarlerly38(3):IV60 Bloechlresponsibility and the problemof evil259-73 Table continued Dalt'AuthorArticle/chapterReferencesVolChap. 1998CatherineThe messianicutopiaGraduateFacultyPhilosophyJournal.ed.11142 Cha1ierB.Bergo and D.Perpich 20(2)-21(1): 281-96 1998RichardA.Brismila,desireand LevinasShofar16(3)(Spring):63-70III44 Cohen 1998John E.Sense andicon:the problemofPhilosophyToday 42,supplement: 47-58II27 DrabinskiSf1'llgcbuliginLevinas andMarion () 1998Cheryl L.The primacyof ethics:HobbesandC01ltin.entalPhilosophyRel'iew31:79-94II29 :c '" HughesLevinas0 1998DennisKingReading Levinas reading Descartes'Journalof theBritishSockty forII30 z KeenanMeditationsPhenomenology 29(1):63-74 0 l"" 1998DavidTracework:myself andothers intheInternational Journal of Philosophical StudiesII320 >CMichaelmoral phenomenologyof Merleau-Ponty6(3):345-92 0

LevinandLevinas () 1998Jean-LucAnote concerniog theontologicalGraoJJateFacultyPhilosophy Journal,ed.B.14 > MarionindifferenceBergoandD.Perpich,20(2)-21(1):25-40 r 1998StephaneEmmanuelLevinas:ethics as primaryGraduate FacultyPhilosophyJournal,ed.B.15 --I > MosesmeaningBergo and D.Perpich,20(2)-21(1):13-24 1998AdriaanLevinas'methodResearch inPhenomenology28:110-2516 l"" Peperzak tIl 1998DianeAsingular justice: ethicsandpoliticsPhilosophyToday 42,supplement:59-70IV74 PerpichbetweenLevinas and Derrida 1998John SallisLevinas andthe elementalResearchillPhenomenology28:152-9I17 1998StellaWriting as aman:Levinas andtheRadical Philosophy 87(Jan.lFeb.): 6-17IV77 Sandfordphenomenologyof Eros 1998BrianBreakingthe closed circle:Levinas andDialogue andUniversalism8(10):97-106II36 SchroederPlatonicPaideia 1998S Universitaires deFrance, pp.97-124 r 2001TinaOntological difference,sexual difference,T.Chanter,Time.Death.and theFeminine:IV64.., Chanterandtimel..eviJlaswithHeidegger.Stanford, Calif.: > Stanford University Press.pp.37-74 til r 2001SandorConsc/ftnce,conscience, consciousness:J.Rothand E.Maxwellet aI,RememberingIII47trl GoodhartEmmanuelLevinas.theHolocaust andfortheFuture:TheHolocaustinanAge of thelogicof witnessGenocide.New York:Palgrave,pp.98-113 2001ClaireEliseReinhabiting the houseof Ruth:T.Chanter (ed.)FeministInterpretations ofIV70 Katzexceedingthelimits of thefeminineinEmmanuel Levinas,University Park,Pa.: LevinasPenn StateUniversityPress,pp.145-70 2001BrianThelistening eye:Nietzsche andLevinasRi!setlrchinPhenomenology31:188-202II35 Schroeder ChronologlcalTablecontinued DateAuthorArticlelchapterReferencesVol.Chap. 2002AnnabelIsliberalism"allweneed"?Uvinas'sPolitical Theory30(2):204-27IV69 n HerzogjJoliticsof surplus :;: 2003RichardA.Levinasandtheparadox of monotheismeaklers d'E,udes Uvirrassiennes,issueonIII43 "CohenLevinas, Iemonotheisme1(2):61-76 0 z 2003JamesNamelessmemory:Levinas,witness andG.Ricci(ed.)Justiceand thePoliticsofIV68 0 HatleypoliticsMemory,Religionand PublicLife,vol.33,r ~Piscataway,NJ:TransactionPublishers, 0 ~ pp.33-54 I:') ~ ; -(') 2005BettinaLevinas's 'ontology'1935-i974Not previouslypublishedII23 > Bergo r 2005LeonardGod and concept:on thelove of theNot previouslypublishedII31 -l Lawlorneighbour inLevinasandBergson > ForthcomingLeoraDependency and vulnerability:Jewish andH. Tirosh-Samuelson(ed.),WomenandIII40=' r Batnittkyfeministexistentialist constructions of theGenderinJewishPhilosophy,Bloomington:~ humanIndiana UniversityPress,pp.127-52 For.hcomingOaire EliseFrom erostomaternity:love,death, andH. Tirosh-Samuelson(ed.),WomenandIII50 Katz"the feminine"in the philosophy ofGenderinJewishPhilosophy,Bloomington: EmmanuelLevinasIndiana University Press,pp.153-75 ADV AE BV CP DE DF DL DMT DVI EaE EDE EE Eel EI EN GDT GWC IR ITN NP NTR OTBJOB PN TA Tel TI TN TO ABBREVIATIONS L 'au-deladuverset Autrementquetreou au-dele;deJessence Beyond theVerse Collected Philosophical Papers De'existence ciI'exi.l'lanl DifficultFreedom DifficileLiberle Dieu,faMort.et IeTemps DeDieuqui,,;em a /'idee Delexistjustice(AE191;08 150).However,thecor-rectionof theasymmetryof proximityisnotthecorrectionof illeityinthe formof a departure fromitbutrather another formof the relationtoillcit)': "Thereisabetrayalof myanarchicrelationwithilleity,butalsoanew relationwithit"(AE201;08158).IIIeityisthereforenotonly"thefact thattheothersshowthemselvesintheirfacc"(AE15;08 13).IlIeityalso hascertain"indirectways"thatthrough"thepresenceofathirdparty alongsideof theneighbor"leadmealongthepathofthcmatizatioIland consciousnesstothat comparisonof theincomparablelhatisnecessaryfor .justiccandthatisusuallyassignedtothethirdpersonperspective(AE20; 08 16).IIIeityistheconditionforirreversibility,theirreversibilityof time 51 LEVINAS,PHENOMENOLOGYANDHISCRITICS andof therelationwiththeOther (HH59;CP104),but itisalsothrough iIIeity- Levinassays,"thankstoGod" - thatIam another fortheothers andhaverightsaswell(AE 201;OB158). Partof thefunctiollof theneologism"iIleity"istoholdtogetherina single teon the conflict between the ethicaland thepoliticalthat arose from the location of thethird party inthe face of the Other. Thc conflict amounted to acontradiction, or, more precisely,what Levinas couldnot thinkwithout theideaof contradictionsuggestingitselftohim.InOtherwisethanbeing Levinas associatedthe introduction of the thirdparty withthe introduction of acontradiction: The thirdparty introduces a contradiction inthe saying whose significa-tionbeforetheother untilthenwentinone direction.It isof itself the limit of responsibility andthe birth of this question:What do I haveto do with justice? (AE200;OB157.Myitalics) Sometimes Lcvinas was alittle hesitant about the termcontradiction.Inan interview he gave in1982,';Philosophy, Justice,Love," after confirming that hiscentralideawasthatof theasymmetryof theinterpersonal,Levinas explained,HButtothisideaand withoutcontradicting it- I add immedi-atelyconcernforthethirdpartyand,fromthcnon,justice"(EN123). Butinthesameyear,inthecourseof adiscussionthattookplaceinthe aftermath of the massacre of Palestinians in the camps at Sabra and Chantila, Levinas acknowledgedthatthere was a"direct contradiction between ethics andpolitics,if boththesedemandsaretakentotheedreme."11Levinas's concernwasnotwithmaintainingthepurityofanethicsignorantof politics, but ruther with the conflict between ethics andpolitics, where ethics questionspoliticalsocietyandyetat the sametimeisremorselesslydrawn outof itself tonegotiatethepolitical.Whereastheuseof narrative exposi-tioninTotalityand InfinityIcdtothetendencytopresenttherelationof ethics andpoliticsinteonsof aderivationof onefromtheother.itseems that inhislaterthoughtLevinas sought awayof focusingonthemas eOll-flictingaspectsof what heincreasinglypresented asIIsinglestructurc. In his1982 essay"Useless Suffering""Levinas reallinnedthat thepolitical isneither derivedfromtheethical.nor entirelyindependent of it. The order of politicspost-ethical or pre-ethicalwhichinaugurates the "socialcontract"isneitherthesufficientconditionnorthenecessary outcomeof ethics.InitscthicllIposition,theself (Iemoilisdislinct from the cili:lenborn of the City, and fromthe individual who precedes allorder inhisnaturalegoism,fromwhompoliticalphilosophy,since Hobbes,triesto derive - or succeeds in deriving - the social or political order of theCity.'2 52 THETHIRDPARTY InthisessayLevinasnamedtheorderinwhichtheintersectionbetween the ethical andthepolitical tookplacethe "interhuman" (EN118-119;US 164165).It corresponds to what Levinas more commonly called "fraternity." Levinaswasperhapsdrawntothisalternativeterm,"interhuman,"inan attempt to avoid the criticism directed at his use of sexistlanguage, although thelargercomplaintex.tendedbeyondhislanguagetohisanalysisof the feminineitself. LevinasemployedtheconceptoffraternityinTotalityandInfinityin order to establishaframeworkforanunderstanding of human societylhal didnotdependontheideaofthehumanraceasabiologicalgenus (fel188-189;TI213).Levinasdidnotdenythevalidityoftheconcept of thehumanrace,butheclaimedthataconceptionof societybasedon responsibilityneededto stress both common paternity and the separateness of individualsandthatthiswasbetter securedby appealingtothekindof paternityofferedbymonotheismthanitwasbyanotionofbiological paternity.A humancommunitybased on a common genuswould,Levinas insisted,neitherseparatetheindividualsfromeachothersufficiently,nor bind them together closely enough.By contrast, anotion of fraternity rooted inmonotheismgivesriseto"individualitieswhoselogicalstatusisnot reducible to the status of ultimate differences inagenus. for their singularity consistsineachreferringtoitself"(Tel189;TI214).Levinasdidnotsay that only the monotheistic notion of common paternity coul secure the con-ceptof fraternityheresuggested.Hewouldpresumablyhavebeensatisfied withanynotionof fraternitythatexhibitedtheappropriatefeaturesand thatinparticularleftroomfortheindependem:eof theseparatedperson. Levinas'sanalysisherewasclearlydirectedbyhisattempttodevelopan alternativetotheracistphilosophy of NationalSocialismwheretheexalta-tion of biological life subordinated the individual to the impersonaltriumph of theVolkor of thespecies(feI92--93;TI120).13AsLevinasexplained. ''The biologicalhumanbrotherhood- conceivedwiththesober coldnessof Cainisnotasufficientreasonformetoberesponsibleforaseparated being.,,14Fraternityis,therefore,Levinas'snameforthe wayinwhichthe relationwiththeOtherisalreadyrecognizedasgivingwaytotherelation withother Others. Therelationwiththefaceinfraternity,whereinhis[orher]turnthe Otherappearsinsolidaritywithalltheothers,constitutesthesocial order,thereferenceof everydialoguetothethirdpartybywhichthe Weor theparty - encompassesthe facetofaceopposition. (Tel257;II 280) The referenceof thesocialorder tofraternitychallengestheconceptionof politicsthalreducesittoanetworkof relationsorganizedwithreference to the species,the people,or therace.Just as the notion of justice provided 53 l.EVINAS,PHENOMENOLOGYANDHISCRITICS Lcvinaswiththemeanstopassfromtheethicaltothepoliticalwhile maintaining their separation, sothenotion of fraternity joins the Other and thethirdparly without reducingthemtounitswithin atotality. AlongsideLevinas'srejectionof theCly,the other cannot be an alter ego], thisisthemostmesmerizingabyss.themostrecurrentquestion,themost cunningobstacle.Thus,"Valeryremarkablyadds,"theotherman remains afundamentalconception." Questioninglanguage ]amsurethatLevinasdocsnotmindphilosophizinginwaysthatmight seemsomewhatunfashionable.Philosophyis.if anything.untimely.ilndto characterize his work as noveliswhatwould least agree with him.Nonethe less,whilerestoringmetaphysicsandethicstoaneminencetheyformerly, if notunwittingly.enjuyed,Levinasanticipates,orfollowsoutinhisown way,thepreoccupationsthatarepreeminently(or,unfortunately)thoseof ourtime.For example,heneverfailstoquestionthedomainof language inacrucial,astuteway,onethathasforsolongbeenneglectedbythe philosophicaltradition.Valery,forexample,thoughthecouldputphilos-ophyinadifficultsituationbyclaimingthat"philosophyandalltherest isonly apeculiaruseof words" andthat "everymetaphysics resultsfroma 60 OURCLANDESTINECOMPANION pooruseof words."Theremarkgetsclarifiedwhenheexplainshisown conceptionof language,whatmightbeC"cllledanexistentialview,namely, thatwhatcountsisthatthe"lived[reelle),internalexperience"concealsa conceptuallyorderedsystem,asystemof notationsandconventionsthat goesfarbeyond-'thequiteparticular andpersonalphenomenon."Bcyond the singularphenomenonitself,then,suchaviewconveysthegeneralvalue of truthorlaw.Inotherwords,Valeryreproachesphilosophyforbeing what hewill demand that literature and poetry be:the possibility of language, theinventionof asecond-degreelanguage("tothinkinaformthatone wouldhaveinvented"), without the "foolish and indomitable pretension" of makingitseemonecouldgetout of thesituationbyhavingthislanguage passforthought.It istruethatValerywilladd(awarningthatstillholds forthebest linguists whenthey concern themselveswithpoetics) that "every investigationaboutArtandPoetrytendstomakenecessarywhatis essentially arbitrary." Thus,hepoints outthetemptationsor "mimological perversions" that arise when necessity isequated with the appearance, or the effect.of necessity- asomewhat enigmaticattempt of discursivemutation, allthesame. Irreduciblediachrony Whatmatters toLevinas issomething else,anditisonly involvedindirectly happily,shouldIsay?inlinguisticresearch.If thereisanextremedis-symmetrybetween"me andtheOther"(expressedinhisimpressiveremark that"the Otherisalways closertoGodthanI,"whopreservesHispower, whateverisunderstoodbytheunnameablenameof God),iftheinfinite relationbetweenmeand other mightnonethelessbearelationof language, ifitisallowedme.Iwhoamscarcelymyself.tohavearelationwiththe extremeotherthe closestandfarthestthroughspeech,thenthere could notfailtoresultcertainexigenciesthatmightreverseoroverturnspeech itself,evenif thiswereonlythefollowing:theOtherorothercannotbe thematizcd.Allof whichistosay,Iwillnotspeakof theotherorabout the other,butI willspeak - if I speaktothe Other (i.e.,to the stranger, the poor,himwhohasnospeech,eventbemaster,bereftof mastery).notto informhimor to transmit knowledgeto himataskfor ordinary language butrathertoinvokehim(thisother sootherthathismodeof a(ldressis not"you"but"he"),torenderhimwitnessbyamannerof speakingthat doesn'teffacetheinfinitedistance,butisspeechbythisdistance,aspeech bornof theintinite. In each of his books Levinas continually refines,byan ever more rigorous reflection,whatwassaidonthissubjectinhisToralityand Injinity:what, properly,hadbeensaid,thatis,thematizoo,andthuswasalwaysalready said,insteadof remainingtobesaid.Fromthisoneof thepersistentand insolubleproblemsof philosophyderives:howcanphilosophybetalked 61 LEVINAS,PHENOMENOLOGYANDHISCRITICS about,openedup,andpresented.without,bythatverytoken.Llsinga particularlanguage,contradictingitself,mortgagingitsownpossibility'? Must not thephilosopher be a writer, andthus foregophilosophy, evenwhile pointing outthephilosophyimplicitinwriting,?Or, just aswell,topretend to teach it, to master it _.that is.this venture of a non-mastered. oral speech. allthewhiledemeaninghimself fromtimeto timebywritingbooks?How canonemaintainthedissymmetry,theintersubjectivelyqualified(and wrongly so) curvatUl'e of space,the infinity of a speechborn of the infinite? Levinaswillgofurthest.inthetextentitled"TheSayingandtheSaid,"a textthat speakstoliS.justasif theextraordinaryitself spoketous,about somethingIhavenointentionor abilitytotakeupor sumup.One simply has to read it, and meditate uponit.Indeed.I can somewhat evasively recall thatif thesaidisalwaysalreadysaid,thentheSayingisneverol1lytobe said. somethingthat doesnotprivilegethefuture(thefuturepresentof the future),norisit evenatleast,thisishowI interpretit- aprescriptionas edict.Rather,itiswhatnoegocantakeuponitself andsafeguardinits keep:it canonlybe donebygivingitup.Sayingisgiving,loss(yes,loss). but. and] mightadd.losswithintheimpossibility of losspureand simple. Bythesaid,webelongtoorder.totheworld(thecosmos),andwearc presenttotheother withwhomwedealas equals.Weare contemporaries. Somewhere inSaying, however, we are uprootedfromthat order. without whichorderitself mightserenelydisappearintodisorder.Suchistheoon-coincidencewiththe Other:theimpossibilityof beingtogetherinasimple simult.ancity.thenece.'lsity(theobligation)of assumingatimenotof the present,whatLevinaswilltermthe"irreducihlediachrony,"whichisnot alivedtempomlity.butratherismarkedasalapse(or absence)of time. This iswhat Saying entails in our responsibility towards the other. a respons-ibility sobeyondmeasurethatwearegivenover to itpassively,atthelimit of allpatiencerather than being capable of responding to it autonomously. out of ollrpretensiontobesubjects.Onthe contrary,wearc subjected.we arc exposed(an exposurethatisnotof presenceor of unconcealment)and revealedasou/,selve.\atrisk,thoroughlyobsessedor besiegedtothepoint of "substitution"theonewhopracticallydoesn'texistexistingonlyfor theotherinthe"ont' .fiJI''heolher"relation.Sucharelationmustn'tbe thought of asanidentilicatioll,sinceitdoesn't 'sthinking begins withthe if y a,whichishis deformationof theHeideggerianunderstanding of Being (an appropriation andruinationof the.S'eins/rage),hisentiresubsequentworkwouldseem. onafirstreading,tobepremisedupontheneces..,ityto surmount theif ya inordertomoveontothehypostasisof theSubjectandultimatelythe ethicalrelationtotheOther,arelationwhosealterityisunderwrittenby thetraceofiIIeity.Inordertoestablishthatethicsisfirstphilosophy (i.e.thatphilosophyis /irs/),Lcvinasmustovercometheneutralityof the if ya,theambiguous instanceof literatufe. Now,toreadLcyinasinthiswaywouldbetoadoptwhatPaulDavies hascalled'alinearnarrative', 1\whichwouldbeginwithone('bad')experi-ence of neutrality inthe if yl/ and endup with another ('good') experience of neutralityiniIleity,afterhavingpassedthroughthemediatingmoments oftheSubjectand(Jll/rlli(roughly,SectionsIIand1lIofTotalily(m(1 It!tinily). ToreadLcvinas in this waywouldbctofollowalinc fromtheif y atotheSubject,towllrui,toilleity.However,thequestionthatmustbe asked is:canor, indeed, Jhout./ one readLevinas ina linear fashion,as if the 78 fLYHOLDINGLEVINAS'SHANDTOBLANCHOT'SFIRE claim to ethics as firstphilosophy were a linear ascent to a newmetaphysical summit,asifTotalityandInfinitywereananti-Hegelianrewritingof the P/u.-nomt'nologyof Spirit(whichmightyetbe trueatthelevelof Levinas's intentions)?IstheneutralityoftheIIyacverdecisivelysurmountedin Levinas's work? Andif this isso, why doesthei1 yakeeponreturning like theproverbialrepressed,relentlesslydisturbingthelinearityof theexposi-tion?Isthe moment of the il J' a - that istosay.the instance of the literary, of rhetoric and ambiguity - inany wayreducible or controllable in Levinas's work? Or mightone track an alternative destiny of the if ya,whereitisnot decisively surmountedbutwhere itreturnstointerrupt that workat certain critical moments'! Might this not plot a different itinerary for reading Levinas. wherethenameof Blanchot wouldfunctionasa clueor keyfortheentire problematic of literature,writing,neutralityandambiguityinthearticula-tionof ethicsasfirstphilosophy?Isliteraturecverdecisivelyovercomein the est.ablishmentof ethicsasfirstphilosophy? Letmegiveacoupleof instancesof thistrackingof theiIyabefore provisionallysketchingwhatI seeastheimportant consequences of sucha reading. IS Theproblem withtheil J' aisthat itstubbornly refusesto disappear and thatLevinaskeepsonreintroducingitatcrucialmomentsintheanalysis. It functionslikeastandingreserveof non-sensefromwhichLcvinaswill repeatedly draw the possibility of ethical significance, like an incessant buzz-ing inthe ears that returns oncethe day falls silent and one tries to sleep. To pickafewexamples.almost at random:(I) inthe' Phenomenology of eros'. thenightof theiJ yaappearsalongsidethenightof theerotic.where'the facefadesandtherelationtotheotherbecomesaneutral,ambiguous. animalplay'16Ineros,wemovebeyondthefaceandriskenteringlhe twilightzone of the II ya.where therelationtothe Other becomesprofane and language becomes lascivious and wanton, like the speeches of the witches inMacbeth.But, as iswellknown. the moment of eros, of sexual difference, cannotbereducedorbypassedinLcvinas'swork.whereitfunctionsas whatLcvinas calls inT;me lmd tileOther an'alterily content'l?thmore thanll:an think.asthatwhichcannotbeanobjector asimple"objectivereality"of the idea- --such isIhepole of metaphysicaltranscendence.After the t'pekeil1(l Ie:.OIlS;U.Y.theCartesianideaof infinitymademetaphysil.'Sernel'gefora secondtimeinWesternontology.ButwhatneitherPlatonorDescartes recognized(along withseveral others,if wemay bcpermittednottobelieve tothesameextcntasLevinasintheirsolitudeamongthephilosophical crowdwhichunderstands neither truetranscendence nor the strange idea of Infinity)isthatthe expressionof thisinfinityisthe face. 107 LEVIN AS,PHENOMENOLOGYANDHISCRITICS The faceisnot only a visage which maybe the surface of things or animal facies.aspect,or species.It isnotonly,followingtheoriginof theword, what is seen,seen because it is naked. It isalso that which sees.Not so much that which sees things-a theoretical relation-but that which exchanges its glance. The visageis a faceonly inthe face-to-face.AsScheler said (but our citation must not make us forgetthat Levinas is nothing less than Schelerian): '"seenolonlytheeyesof an other,I seealsothat helooks atnle." DidnotHegelsaythistoo?"If weaskourselves nowinwhichparticular organthesoulappearsassllchinits entirety weshallatonce pointtothe eye.For inthe eyethesoulconcentrates itself;itnot merelyusesthe eyeas itsinstrument,butisitselfthereinmanifest.Wehave.however,already stated,whenreferringtotheexternal covering of thehumanbody,thatin conlrastwiththebodiesof animals,theheartof lifepulsesthroughand throughoutit.Andinmuchthesamesenseit can beassertedof artthatit has to invent everypoint of the external appearance into the direct testimony of thehuman eye.whichisthe source of soul-life. andreveals spirit."28 This isperhapstheoceasiontoemphasize.concerningaprecisepoint.atheme that wewillenlargeuponlater:Levinasisvery closetoHegel.muchcloser than he admits.andattheverymomentwhenheisapparentlyopposedto Hegelinthemostradicalfashion.Thisisasituationhemust sharewithaU anti-Hegelianthinkers, and whose finnlsignificance calls formuchthought. Here.inparticular,ontherelationsbetweendesireandtheeye,between sound andtheory,theconvergenceisasprofoundasthedifference,being neither simplyaddedtonor juxtnposed withit.In effect, likeLevinasHegel thoughtthattheeye,notaimingat"consumption,"sllspendsdesire.Itis theverylimitof desire(andperhaps.thereby.itsresource)andisthefirst theoreticalsense.Wemustnot conceivelightandtheeye's openingonthe basis of any physiology.but 011thebasisof therchltionbetweendeath and desire.Afterhavingspokenof taste.touch,andsmell,Hegelagainwrites. inthe Aesthetics: "Sight, on the other hand. possesses apurely idealrelation toobjectsbymeansof light,amaterialwhichisatthesametimeimma-terial,andwhichsuftcrsonitsparttheobjectstocontinueintheirfree self-subsistence.making themappear andreappear,but whichdoesnot.as theatmosphereor firedoes,consumethemactivelyeither by imperceptible degrees or patently.Everything then.isnnobjectof theappetitelessvision, [Iavuecxcmptcdedesirs)which,however,insofarasitremainsunim-pairedinitsintegrity.merelyisdisclosedinitsformandcolour."2Y This neutralizationof desireiswhat makessight excellentforHegel.But forLevinas.thisneutralizationisalso,andforthesnmereasons.the(jrst violence.eventhoughthefaceisnotwhatitiswhentheglanceisabsent. Violence,then,wouldbethesolitudeof amuteglance,of afacewithout speech,the abstractionof seeing.AccordingtoLcvinastheglanceby ilselj; contmrytowhatonemaybeledtobelieve,docsnotrespecttheolher. Respect,beyondgraspandcontact,beyondtouch,smellandtaste,canbe 108 VIOLENCEANDMETAPHYSICS onlyasdesire,andmetaphysicaldesiredoesnotseektoconsume,asdo Hegeliandesireorneed.ThisiswhyLcvinasplacessoundabovelight. ("Thought is language and isthought in an element analogous to sound and nottolight."What doesthis analogymeanhere.adifferenceandaresem-blance.arelationbetweenthesensiblesound andthesoundof thoughtas intelligible speech.between sensibility and signification, the senses and sense? Thisisa questionalsoposed byHegel,admiringthewordSinn.) InTotalityandInJinitythemovementof metaphysicsisthusalsothe transcendence of hearing inrelation to seeing.But inHegel'sAesthetit's too: "Theremainingidealsenseishearing.Thisisinsigna]contrasttotheone just described.Hearing is concerned withthetone.rather than the formand colourof anobject.withthevibrationof whatiscorporeal;itrequiresno process of dissolution. as the sense of smeJlrequires,but merely atrembling of theobject.bywhichthesameisinnowiseimpoverished.Thisideal motion. inwhichthrough itssoundwhat isas it werethe simple individual-ity [subjectil'ile] the soul of the material thing expresses itself, the ear receives alsoinanidealway,just astheeyeshapeandcolour,andsuffersthereby whatisidealor not externalintheobjectto appealtowhatisspiritUalor non-corporeaJ."JCIBut: Hearing,which,asalsothesight.doesnotbelongtothesensesof action[sen.fpratiques]butthoseof contemplation(senstheor;que.f); andi!l,infact,stillmoreidealthansight.Fortheunruffled,aesthetic observationof works of arlnodoubt permitstheobjectstostandout quietlyintheirfreedomjU!ltastheyarewithoutanydesiretoimpair thateffectinanyway;butthat whichitapprehendsisnotthatwhich isitself essentiallyideallycomposed,butratheronthecontrary,that whichreceivesitsconsistencyinitssensuousexistence.Theear,on thecontrary,receivestheresultofthatidealvibrationofmaterial substance,withoutplacingitselfinapracticalrelationtowardsthe objects, a resultby means of which it isnolonger the material objectin itsrepose,butthefirstexampleof themoreidealactivityof thesoul itself whichisapprehended.)' Thequestionof theanalogywouldthusleadusbacktothenotionof trembling,whichseemstousdecisiveinHegel'sAestheticsinthalit opensthepassagetoideality.Further,inordertoconfrontsystematically Hegel'sandLevinas':>thoughtsonthethemeof theface,onewouldhave to consult nolonlythepagesof thePhenomenology of theMind devotedto physiognomy,butalsoparagraph411of theEncyc/opedulonmind,face. andlanguage. For reasons now familiar to LIS,the face-lo-face eludes every category.For withinitthefaceisgivensimultaneously asexpressionandasspeech.Not onlyasglance,butastheoriginalunityof glanceandspeech.eyesand 109 LEVIN AS.PHENOMENOLOGYANDHISCRITICS mouth,thatspeaks,butalsopronouncesitshunger.Thusitisalsothat whichhearstheinvisible,for"thoughtislanguage," and"'isthoughtinan elemcnt analogoustosoundandnottolight."Thisunityof thefacepre-cedes,inits signification,the dispersionof senses and organs of sensibility. Itssignificationisthereforeirreducible.Moreover.thefacedoesnot signify.It doesnotincarnate.envelop.or signalanythingotherthanself. soul. subjectivity,etc. Thought isspeech,and istherefore immediately face. Inthis,thethematic of thefacebelongstothe most modernphilosophyof language andof thebodyitself.Theother isnotsignaledbyhisface,heis this face:"Absolutely present, in his face.the Other-without any metaphor-faces The other,therefore.isgiven"inperson" and withoutallegory onlyintheface.LetusrecallwhatFeuerbach,whoalsomadethethemes of height,substance,andfacecommunicatewitheachother.saidonthis subject:"Thatwhichissituatedhighestinspaceisalsoinitsqualitythe highestpartof man.thatwhichisclosesttohim.thatwhichonecanno longer separatefromhim-and thisishishead.If Iseeaman'shead,itis themanhimself whoI see;butif Ionlyseehistorso,Iseenomorethan historso. "33TiultwhichcannoJongerbeseparated from. .. issubstancein its essentialpredicates and"initself."Levinas al!Kloften says kath'auloand "substance"inspeaking of theother as face.Thefaceispresence,ousia. Thefaceisnotametaphor,notafigure.Thediscoursconthefaceis neitherallegorynor,asonemightbetemptedtobelieve,prosopopoeia. Consequentlytheheightortherace(inrelationtotherestof thebody) perhaps determines in pari(inpart only,as wewillseelater)the expression most-highwhichwecxaminedabove.If theheightof themost-high,aswe mightbetemptedtosay,doesnOIbelol/gtospace(andthisiswhythe superlativemustdestroyspaceasitconstructsthemetaphor).itisnot because itisforeigntospace,butbecause(within) spaceitistheoriginof space, orienting space through speech and glance, through the face,the chief whocommandsbodyandspacefromabove.(Aristotle,indeed,compares the transcendental principle of the goodto the chief of the armies;however, hcoverlooksboththeface,andthefactthatthegodof thearmiesisthe Facc.)Thefacedocsnotsignify.doesnotpresentitselfasasign.hut 'xprcs.\CSofferingitselfinpf'r.wm.initself,kalh'aulo:"thethingin itself expressesitself."Toexpressoneself istobeb('hilldthesign.Tobe behindthesign:isthisnot,jinl of aJl,to be capable of attending (to) one's speech, to assist it. according to the expre.'isionusedinthePh{/('drus as argu-mentagainst111cUth(orHcrmcs)-anexprcs.'!ionLevinasmakeshisown on severaloccasions. Only living speech. initsmastcry and magisteriality, is able10assistitself;andonlylivingspeechiscxpressionandnotaservile signontheconditionthatitistt'Ulyspeecb,"the creativevoice,andnot theaccomplicevoicewhichisfromthemostmodernphilosophy of finitude. This strange alliance inthe question perhaps signifies that withinphilosophy andwithinlanguage,withinphilosophicaldiscourse(supposingthereare anyothers),onc cannotsimultaneouslysavethethemesof positiveinfinity andof theface(thenonrnetaphoricalunityof body,glance.speech,and thought).Thislastunity,itseemstous,canbethoughtonlywithinthe horizonof infmite(indefinite)alterity astheirreduciblycommonhorizonof Death andthe Other. 'Ille horizon of finitudeor the finitude of thehorizon. But, letus repeat, allthis lVitllin philosophical tliM:ourse,where the thought of Deathitself (withoutmetaphor)andthethoughtof apositiveInfinity 124 VIOLENCEANUMETAPHYSICS haveneverbeenabletounderstandeachother.If thefaceisbody,itis mortal.Infinite alterity as death cannot bereconciled withinfinite alterity as positivityandpresence(God).Metaphysicaltranscendencecannotbeat oncetranscendencetowardtheother asDeath andtranscendencetowards the other as God.Unless God means Death,whichafterallhasneverbeen excluded bytheentirety of tbeclassicalphilosophywithinwhichweunder-standGodbothasLifeandastheTruthof Infinity.of positivePresence. Butwhatdoesthisexclusionmeanif nottheexclusionof everyparticular determination?And that Godisnothing (determined),isnot life,becausehe isand therefore is at once Alland Nothing, Life and Death. Which meansthat Godisor appears,isnamed,withinthedifferencebetweenAll andNothing,LifeandDeath.Withindifference,andatbottomasDiffer-enceitself.This difference iswhat iscalledHistory.Godisinscribed init. ItwillbesaidthatLevina.'!standsopposedtopreciselythiskindof philosophical discourse.But in this combat, he already has given up thebest weapon:dilldainof discourse.Ineffect,whenconfrontedbytheclassical difficultiesof languagewearereferringto,Levinas cannotprovidehimself withthe classicalresources againstthem.At arms withtheproblems which were equallytheproblems of negativetheologyand of Bergsonism, he does not givehimself therightto speak,as they did,inalanguage resignedto its ownfailure.NegativetheologywasspokeninaspeechthatknewitseU' failedand finite,inferior to logos asGod's understanding.Above all,nega-tivetheologyneverundertookaDiscoursewithGodinthefacetoface, and breath to breath, of two freespeeches;and this despite the humility and the haughtiness of breaking oIT.or undertaking, the exchange.Analogously, Bergson had the right to announce the intuition of duration. and to dcnounce intellectualspatialization,withinalanguagegivenovertospace.It was not aquestionof saving,but of destroying discoursewithin"metaphysics," thesciencewhichallegedlydoeswithoutsymbols"(Bergson).Antagonistic metaphorsweremultipliedsystematicallyinthisautodestructionoflan-guage which adovc.1ted silent metaphysical intuition. Language being defined asahistoricalresiduc,therewasno contradictioninutilizingit,forbetter or forworse. inorder to denounce itsownbetrayal, andthento abandonit toits owninsufficiencyas rhetoricalrefuse,J.'P(!t'(hlostto metaphysics.Like negative theology, aphilosophy of intuitive communion gave itself theright (correctlyor ineorrectly.anotherproblem)totravelthroughphilosophical discourseasthroughaforeignmedium.Butwhathappenswhenthisright isnolongergiven,whenthepossibilityof metaphysicsisthepossibilityof speech?Whenmetaphysicalresponsibilityisresponsibilityforlanguage, because "thought consists of speaking" (TI), and metaphysics isalanguage withGod?Howtothinktheother,iftheothercanbespokenonlyas exteriorityandthroughexteriority,thatis,nonalterity?Andif thespecch whichmustinaugurateandmaintainabsoluteseparationisbyitsessence rootedinspace,whichcannotconceiveseparationandabsolutealtcrity? 125 LEVINAS,PHENOMENOLOGYANDHISCRITICS If,asLevinassays,onlydiscourse(andnotintuitivecontact)isrighteous, and if, moreover, all discourse essentially retains within it space and the Same --doesthisnotmeanthatdiscourseisoriginallyviolent?Andthatthe philosophical logos, the only one in which peace may be declared. is inhabited bywal'!The distinctionbetweendiscourseandviolence42 alwayswillbean inaccessiblehorizon.Nonviolencewouldbethetelos,andnottheessence of discourse.Perhapsitwillbesaidthatsomethinglikediscoursehasits essence initstelos,and the presence of its prescntinitsfuture. This certainly isso,butontheconditionthatitsfutureanditstelosbenondiscourse: peace asacertainsilence,acertainbeyondof Speech.acertainpossibility, acertainsilenthorizonofspeech.Andteloshasalwayshadtheform or presence.beit afuturepresence.l11ereiswaronlyaftertheopeningof discourse.andwar dies out only at the end or discourse.Peace,likesilence. isthe strange vocation of alanguage called outside itself byitself.But since finitesilenceisalsothemediumof violence,languagecanonlyindefinitely tendtowardjusticebyacknowledgingandpracticingtheviolencewithin it.Violcm:eagainst violence.Economyof violence.Aneconomyirreducible towhatLevinasenvisionsintheword.If lightisthcelementof violence, one must combat light withacertain other light, inorder to avoidtheworst violcnce,theviolenceof thenightwhichprecedesorrepressesdiscourse. ThisI'igilanceisaviolencechosenastheleastviolencebyaphilosophy whichtakeshistory.that is,finitude.seriously;aphilosophy awareof itself ash;slor;calineachof itsaspects(inasensewhichtoleratesneitherfinite totality, nor positive infinity), and aware of itself, asLevinas says inanother sense,aseconomy.Butagain.aneconomywhichinbeinghistory,canbe at home neitherinthe finitetotality whichLevina:; calls theSamenor inthe positive presence of the Infinite.Speech is doubtless the firstdefeat of violence. butparadoxically,violencedidnotexistbeforethepossibilityof speech. The philosopher (man) must speak andwrite withinthiswar of light,awar inwhichhealwaysalrccldyknowshimselrtobeengaged;awarwhichhe knows isinescapable. except by denying discourse, that is.byrisking the worst violence.Thisiswhythisavowalof thewarwithindiscourse,anavowal whichisnotyetpeace,signifiesthe oppositeor bellicosity;thebellicosity andwhohas shownthisbetterthanHegel?whosebestaccomplicewilhin hLI'{ory is irmics.Within history whichthe philosopher C'phixiationof the same?Isnotthe beyond-history of eschatology the othcr nameof thetransitiontoamoreprofoundhist.ory,toHistoryitself?But toahistorywhich.unableanylongertobeitself illanyoriginalorfinal pr('S('nce,wouldhavctochangeitsname? Inotherwords,perhapsonemightsaythatontologyprecedestheology onlybyputtingbetweenbracketsthecontentoftheonticdetcrmina-tionwhich,inpost-Hellenicphilosophic..1 thought,iscalledGod:towit, thepositiveinfinity.Thepositiveinfinitywouldonlyhavethe(nominal) 158 VIOLENCEANDMETAPHYSICS appearanceof whatiscalledan ontic determination.Intruth,itwouldbe that whichrefuses to be anontic determination whichisincludedas suchin thethoughtof Being,thatis,onthebasisandinthelightof athought of Being.Onthecontrary.itisinfinity-asnondeterminationandconcrete operation--which would permit the thinking of the difference betweenBeing andontic determination.Theontic content of infinitywoulddestroyontic closure.Implicitlyor not,thethoughtof infinity wouldopenthequestion, and the ontico-ontological difference.Paradoxically, itwould bethis thought of infinity(whatiscalledthethoughtof God)whichwouldpermitoneto affirmthe priority of ontology over theology, and to affirmthat thethought of Beingispresupposedbythethoughtof God.Doubtless,itisforthis reasonthatDunsScotusorMalcbranche.respectfulof thepresenceinall thought of uniform Being,or Being ingeneral, didnot believe itnecessary to distinguishbetweenthelevelsof ontology(ormetaphysics)andtheology. Heideggeroftenremindsusof the"strangesimplicity"of thethoughtof Being:thisisbothitsdifficultyandthatwhichproperlytouchesupon the"unknowable.ForHeidegger.infinitywouldbeonlyoneeventual determination of this simplicity.For Malebranche,infinityisits veryform: "Theideaof theextendedinfinitethusenclosesmorerealitythanthatof theheavens;andtheideaof theinfiniteinallgenresof Being,thatwhich correspondstothisword,Being,theinfinitelyperfectbeing,contains infinitely more [reality],although theperception withwhichthis ideaaffeets usisthe slightest of all:and is slighter to the extent that itismorevast. and consequentlyinfinitelyslightbecauseinfinite"(Emretiend'unphilosophe chretien avec un philowphe drinois.)SinceBeing is nothing (determined), it is necessarily produced in difference ('ISdifference).Is.onthe one hand, to say thatBeingisinfinite, or to say.ontheother. that it isrevealedasproduced only "in simultaneity with" (ineins mit) Nothingness (WhiltIsMetaphysics'!) ----whichmeans that itis"finiteinits essence" (ibid.)-fundamentally to say anythingelse?ButonewouldhavetoshowthatHeideggel'nevermeant "anythingelse"thanclassicalmetaphysics.andIhatthetransgressionof metaphysics isnot anewmetaphysicalor oDto-theologicalthesis.Thus.the question about theBeingof the existent wouldnot onlyintroduce-among others--the question abouttheexistent-God;italreadywould SUppO.f,God asthe verypossibilityof its question.andastheanswer within its question. GodalwayswouldbeimpliedineveryquestionaboutGod,andwould prccedeevery"method."Theverycontentof thethoughtof Godisthat of to breakthe code with 195 LEVIN AS,PHENOMENOLOGYANDHISCRITICS afracas.Effractiondoesnotridicule,itindeedmakesapresentofthe "present work." Let's continue:"This bookinterpretsthesubjectashostage,andthe sub-jectivityof thesub.iectassubstitutionbreakingwiththeessenceof being. Thethesisexposesitself imprudentlytothereproachof utopianism,inthe opinionthatmodernmantakeshimselfforabeingamongbeings,while hismodernityex.plodesasanimpossibilityof stayingathome.Thisbook escapes the reproach of utopianismif utopianism bea reproach, if thought canescapebeingutopian-byrecallingthat "wI/tiltook place has lIeverbeenabletoremainshutinitsplace.""TIll'thesis"isthereforenot posed.itisimprudently and defenselessly exposed,andyetthat veryvulner-abilityis("thisweaknessisnecessary,"wewiIIreadalittlelateron)the provocationtoresponsibility forthe other,itleavesplacefor theother ina taking-placeof thisbookwherethethisherenolonger shuts inuponitself, upon itsownsubject.The same dehiscencethatopeneduptheseriesof "at thismoment,"isthereatworkin"thepresentwork.""thisbook,""the thesis." etc.Butthe series isalways complicatedby the factthat the inextric-ableequivocation.contamination,soonitwillbecalled"hypocrisy,"isat once described and denounced inits necessity by "this book," by "the present work,by"the thesis.andinthem,out of them,inthem,butdestinedin themtoanoutsidethatnodialecticwillbeabletoreappropriateintoits book.'nlUS(IunderlineitislIecessaryIiI jtlU1].ilwasnecessaryIiifall ai t]): Eachindividualisvirtuallyan elect. calledforthtoleave,inhistum-orwithoutawaitinghistum-fromtheconceptof theself,fromhis extensionintothepeople.torespondtoresponsibility:methatisto say. here I curl forthe others.calledforthradicallytolosehisplace-or hisrefugewithinbeing,to enter withinaubiquitythat isalso autopia. Here I amforthe othcrs---e-llormous responsibility whose lack of meas-ureisattenuatedbyhypocrisyfromthemomentitentersintomyown cars.warned,astheyare,of the essence'of being,thatisto say,of the wayinwhichitcarries011.Hyprocrisyimmediatelydenounced.But thenormstowhichthedenunciationrefershavebeenunderstood withinthe enormity of their sense.and in the fullresonance of their utter-am:c,truelikeanunbridledwitl1l..'Ss.Noless,atanyrate,isnecessary forthelittlehumanitythatadornstheearth.Theremustbe(44)a dc-regulationof essenccbymeans of which essencemay nol solelyfind violencerepugnant.Thisrepugnanceattestsonlytothephaseof an inaugural or savage humanity, readyto forgetits disgusts.to beinvested as"essenceof de-regulation."surroundingitselflikeallessenccwith honors andmilitaryvirtues.inevitably jealousof itsperseverancc.For thelittlehumanitythatadornstheearththeremustbearelaxingof essence10thesecondpower:inthe justwar made 011war,10tremble--el'enshiver--eleryinstant.because(!l (hatwry jllslice.Theremustbe 196 ATTlIISVER YMOMENTINTHISWORKHf.RIlIAM this weakness. This relaxing of virility, without cowardice, was "ecessary forthe liltle cruelty that our hands repudiate. This is the sense,notably, which should have been suggested by theformulasrepeated inthis book [myitalics,J.D.]aboutthepassivitymorepassivethananypassivity, thefissionof theSelfasfarasmyself.orabouttheconsummation fortheother withouttheactbeingabletoberebornfromout of the ashes of that consummation. Iagaininterrupt:noHegelianPhoenixafterthisconsummation.This bookisnotonly singular innot being put together likethe others. its singu-larityhastodowiththisserialityhere.ab-solute enehainment,rigorousyet witharigorthatknowshowtorelaxitselfasisnecessarysoasnotto becometotalitarian again. evenvirile.henceto freeitself to the discretion of theother inthehiatus.It isinthis serialityhereand nol another (the array initshomogeneousarrangement),inthisserialityof derangement that one mustheareachphilosophemedenmged.dislocated,disarticulated,made inadequateandanteriortoitself,absolutelyanachronictowhateveris saidaboutit,forexample."thepassivitymorepassivethananypassivity" andthewhole"series"of analogoussyntaxes,allthe"formulasrepeated inthisbook."Nowyouunderstandthenecessityof thisrepetition.You thus approach the "he" (";1") which occurs inthis work and fromwhichthe "one must" (";1 falll")issaid.Herearethe lastlines: Inthis work [myitalics. J. D.) which does not seckto restore any ruined concept,the destitutionandde situationof thesubjectdonotremain withoutmeaning:followingthedeathof acertaingodinhabitingthe hinter-worlds.thesubstitutionofthehostagediscoversthetrace---unpronounceablewriting~ - o fwhat.alwaysalreadypast,always"he" C'i1")neverentersanypresentandtowhomnonamesdesignating beings,nor verbswheretheiressenc'eresounds,areanylongerappro-priate.but who,Pro-noun (Pro-nom),marks withhis seal anything that CUllcarryaname. Willitbesaidof "thiswork"(ollvrage)thatitmakesawork?From whichmoment?or what?Ofwhom'!Whateverthestagesmayhe,the responsibilitycomesbacktohim,"he,"tohim,who"undersigns"every signature.Pro-nounwithoutpronounceablenamethat"marks withitsseal whatever can carryaname."Thislast phrase comes attheendof thebook asifinplaceof asignature.EmmanuelLevinasrecalls(45]thepreceding Pro-nounthatreplacesandmakespossibleeverynomimllsignature,by thesame doublestroke,hegives(0 it andwithdraws fromit.hissignature. Isithim,"he,"thatthenissettowork?Of himthattheworkresponds? Of himthatonewillhavesaid,"IIauraoblige"(hewillhaveobligated)?I donotthinkthatbetweensuchapro nounand anameorthebea.rerof a 197 LEVIN AS,PHENOMENOLOGYANDHISCRITICS namethereiswhatonecouldcalladifferenceoradistinction.Thislink betweenhhe"andthebearerof anameisother.Eachtime different,never anonymous, "he" is (without sustaining it with any substantialpresence)the bearerof thename.If Inowtransformtheutterance,whichcamefromI knownotwhereandfromwhichwetookour point of departure ("IJaura oblige").bythis one, "the workof EmmanuelLevinas willhave obligated," would he subscribe to that? Would he accept myreplacing "he" by Emmanuel Levinas inorder tosay (who) willhavemadetheworkinhiswork?Would itbeafault,asto"he" or astohim.E,L.? -Now, I write at your dictation, "the work of E.L.willhave obligated." You have dictated it to me and yet what I write at this very moment,"the work of E. L. willhave obligated." articulating together those common nouns andpropernames,youdon't yetknowwhatthatmeans.ou don'tknow yet how one must read.ou don't even know how. at this moment, one musl hear this"onemust"(iJ faut). The workof E.L. comprehends an ollrer manner to think obligation inthe "one must,anothermannerof thinkingthework.andevenof thinking thought. One must therefore read it otherwise, readthere otherwise the "one must,"andotherwisetheotherwise. Thedislocationtowhichthisworkwillhaveobligatedisadisloca-tionwithoutname;towardanotherthoughtof thename,athoughtthatis whollyotherbecauseitisopentotll'nameof theother.Inauguraland immemorialdislocation,itwillhavetakenplace-anotherplace.inthe place of the other--only onthe condition of anothertopic.Anextravagant topic (u-topic,they willsay, believing theyknow what takes place and what takestheplaceof)andabsolutelyother.Buttoheartheabsoluteof this "absolutely,"onemusthavereadtheserialworkthatdisplaces.replaces. andsubstitutesthisword"absolute."Andtostartwith,theword"work." Weendlesslygetcaughtupinthenetworkof quotationmarks.Weno longerknowhowtoeffacethem,norhowtopilethemup,oneontopof theother.Wenolongerevenknowhowtoquotehis"work"anylonger, since it alre