MLAoeH 00 ....... ••

4 THE PHRENOLOGY OFSPIRIT

MLADEN DOLAA

'Ill

whim?) to use phrenology for his own ends. lhal he should have chosen for ilS

discussion the particular poim of his ,u'gument that he did ll~ P01I1t IS

c uding moment of wmellllllR Ill'll looh like .1 dassical Hegelian 'triad'Ihsen-inl{ Reason Sl<l.rls "jltl the obwn'ltiOIl of outer Udlw:.e.-IJI both I

inorl'f<lnic and org,lIIit aSj)CI IS (hert H d' at <;orne lengthelement.'> of his theon of nalul,11 , ... it'mc); then in the '>Clond i>lep. Re 1

tUfns to it<;elf .md Slrutinucs Its fill II illlwr n.Hurl', "logical and psHltologica.lla"s',in order tin- to h t ouklexpedLOIX:d's\lllhesis'of

the (,",0, v.hilh hears the litle: Oh'>t"n.uioll of \.(·If-(.Ol n III I relationiu ""medial . \ I'h\sioJ.;llonn And phrcllol0 r ". So after examinill

outer and inner nature, Reason arri\'es at a 'hi,her s 'mhesls 0 e t ....o. theirla ec mt Ion lie I Il ap ns to find III 0 a I mg'! reno

Is ege puhngour ego 5 leparo<tYll1g liS own me tlsheplaymgaJo eat our expense? Does the progress of Reason suddenly regress, ending inGuaSlrophe? For there is no <Iuestioll, in the entire seaion, of takingphrenology or physiognomy seriously, Hegel does not for a moment considerthem as ....onhy scientific ellde.Houn, He e\en \olunteers a practical piece ofad\,ice on ho.... to deal wiutlhem' Ihc BroBS[ FS$ 10 I omisl is

'a box on Ihe ear'· .' n...U...IQ the point. l1-refu..t1assum (Jon 0 such a "science" er \. i,ou. Iiiof a man is his fa in I 'f n .. ph enol isl onewou ay llC rc&Dnll g a'·e to 0

tie engt ofbeatin on the skull an ·one makinK such a judgmenlJn oqh;r..oen lJl.<I, UJ,iI,llIMl.f"~ '. ~.lb!I!Jo· bone

is no in uudl I~' 205).

et, afler Ihese humorous rejt.'Clions of ph)'siognomy and phrenology. andjust when we have gOt used to the unusual sight of Hegel cracking jokes andamusing the audience,4 things suddenly get serious:

The crude instinct of $elf-conscious Reason will reject OUI ofh,md such a 'science' ofphrenology ... Uut the worse the oonce nion, the less sometimes 1wherein ils badness S)(."(1 u;:a Ie

01 1)i( lin!

!lllh!incti\'t' all(lllIlIlwdi;I!(' di,mi\,al i, 1101 t'noug:h: it I1m<,('s tht' poillt <I

nh til(' ,,'I)I~l (,Ill 110 )(,Io! till: ],('\1 and th,.t 011 I.hcb S III Kli I ,'ell

So Ihere is a mOTllent of sl>eculati\'e wisdom in thisban,.lity whid) we must hold 011 to; lhere is all insighl overlooked or repressed

- SUPPOSINO T ... SUe .... CT

•

lConsciousnc55] ...hile...ash~ that thought by unthinkingly mixing up ",~th it aU sortsof relationships of C3\1SC and effect, of sign, orgall. ctc, which are ~11~a11l,oglcssh,ere.and it hidcs thc nudity of the pro!)(lsition [lUIS Grtlltdu Sillus] by distinctIons derlvcd

from them, (Ilp, 209-10)

Since there is no common mea$. 'ms the ·udglll~n0s..inf1ni\ :ILunUle '.. ppressc -ww:1 williUPO ibilil: lere is no Wlllmondenominator, no tertiuIII comparati(mis. no basis for a relationship that couldvouch for the assened e<luivalence. What does this suppression mean; how

does it function?b " fl h" h h am of infit' e

Before going any funher.let me ne y l:~'~':'~'~':!ifl~~~;~~jt" ...,.Ion........ U ' I ~ent at a'ud men jJr 1M

I \\'I'en {o1l\lderin the nuestion 01 equisalel1cescruci "1;.lllo~'I"~ " ,l>et"een ditlerent wmmoditi - and the possibility of an equiva enee betweentwo i erenl kinds 0 commodities is what defines the commodity as such ­M ,po ntsout that suth C(lui\'aleme requirc~ u~ to put into brackets. cl1tir~1o rcduce the pmilise. Ilalpdble properlLcs of the elltiticscompared {tha~ ,,111<; I

(01 -r. 'USf' • II .m:omer to ta\..e them as equi\ alent, III adchuon

puuinR: into bratkets the.ir misleadill itise proportiom, '20 ~ards oflinen = Ijad.eC, or 'I (I"<lrter ton 01 wheat = x of Iron·...and-Joo on­formulas lre~up- se the basit uation'line =\c1o.e(, 'wheat = il" ',If such(."( uivalenc ;l"' III n su stance

w lIe mltla.lct' q 'udcpcndent.",A{.~,hei' laleria pt,;op.e tltiS thesu stance of value, How can one in down this immaterial. 'supersensl e'Clltl y, 1hl;" on" wa\ is to real the \<tlue e< llJllO\l prcnsel as an III IIllt-udJ;lllen n yar so linen = 1 'ackel', the two sides 0 t Ie uanon are nots mmetnc\ ! u lanC e fi~t entit 'tlev'lu :Lher:'lh ueo tIe

commodit linen is ex ressctl b of the eomm()( It aeket the va ue

~n~,~e~,,!,u~<e~":=~::::"hi~ conMlousnes.s. ~ rrffilt, enUllO:'! ~;n a propnillion that ofwfiict1 it is the

. Iht, ~ ilion Ihat is impli, it in the '\otitll\ of Ren ,n.

by those respectable sciences dealt with so far under the heading of 'observingReason'.

The chapter 011 Reason SL1.rted with all equation; Reason is the certaint of

con«iousness all.wI" Ut - tmul~ }(

an \' lL'ana S (PI" ,etc. (:oll'o(:iousne

uals reali" in ils 100aii .Ob"ectl\'u is no longe redlO consclOusn domain-

ro ler' nor is it to be lakel . n nger ..... purcly..ncgativ ~-in 1..11

second sla e when conSCiousness took the selr-refleGJ,~\' uW!1 be.Qlll)nSOOUSl1, rill her, we h'I\(' now rearhed Ihe poinr-wnere consr-iousness (".In

ke the reality opposed 10 it as its own realit b'/Xtivil>,!lel selcon~iousn~s in olle his is the starting poinl of the position Hegel callsReason. which is also !.he basic assum lion of Idealism' "dQl' U1wand bei usn n CJuaJil)' -Q ·1 .."tse!!.and.lhe.Ior-"Yet this certain! of he'll the whole truth is not ellOU h: in \0 far as ilcenaint il is not "et trut - lence t e progttSSlQn Reaso IC as

raduall toac uite the truth of which it is certai it h,IS to lind it~c1f 1Il its OWl

eallt ... amr thus make It its ow But this e1f-seekin

realms w ~mpaDic 111101

~-

,

ee euppoe'HO THI!I 8u .... eCT ee

ledge', tr\

'ntO

itixe.fQr.ffiula f<

ca cease.-1:'o:,;'~'.l;i§. ~. The phreuolo .cal j1J

11 cl dial

) IUCUl.;lnl:

or coguilio IS

cir. nlas

SU 0 elU la~ II.o SU 1 eell ny.

abili r

of olle Qllunodily lJy lhc woe \'a!ue..of.-the.oth

mm 01 "ppc.'ar.U1lc of its ()pp()~i{c. the \'aIUea~~~~;~~~~~~~maten ' u~ tJ ¥:iiia~pr '~Lb. !.lid 1UI..'••.1lidl-' .aLsLak.

uation~ t:onstilUles t e mInima ce lot '.pC

(hellce one call dedn from Lhis Its higher orms, money as gen

equivalent. and so on). Ofcourse, there is an obvious difference between thisand Hegel's treatmCIll of the infinite 'udgment· an"! tlati6n.

nmaten"l .u1(1 sUpt'"en\iblt: salue as Slith is not dircul) oppo-.ed 10 Ih

m.ltcrial heinf; <1\ such, the 'spirit" doe not (lireul~ (onfrum the 'bolle', but.pUI it in Hq.;chotll terms. Ill(-' pllil" of olle bone find, its equi\alcllI in

mattel' of another bOIl(" 1 be..., ..Uwu:an.he res er..ed. the two (OIllIilO<!illt"$

(an shift plan'.. , set this doe.. nut allrt~ the m«hanism" one ldnnoilio on I

both ends al the !>allie Urnt.• \11 (omm(Kli(ie~ are endowed VI ilh a sUIx:r'>t:Il~ihlt'

,ul~tall(e, bu t'rn.c.r t: in lhe uatiun ir il is read <I' an infulljudgmen

Lei us return to Hegel.nd ,

•111

.J

•

,. auppoa'NO TH" SU ......CT

...

ratusto~

v

hapte tl pin, tl harrives al the equati(And it is no accidentmoney.)of

'God i~ a man: ~uUte. w~

esh and bl'h e radical mad uation nstlftlt lh Spl (hmenSlon of Chmria-

ahlstll tsalsOoperau\'elllthe edUQK>1I orthe fonare in

hiWsopJry ofRiglll, which rdies on the equallo t Ie tale t~ the Monardi"again the state as the sphere of Reason is em I In t IS Innal mdmdualchosen by the unreasonable conungen of blood succession and representedmerely by his signature, Jlnd so sn.

II" the infinite judgment has, III our view, such a strategic and decisiveimlXlrtance for Hegel. we can venture the h thesis that it necessaril 0110'

from 1: up I ons•.hh.rund.mte.tltalOittitud . Hegd himsdfumsup t IS stan P2mt e ace' to r. t pt;';nommo agy, in the notoriousproposition th "ubstancc u,b-e<t' Ma: lis.$LatelllcnLshouldJxlake" as a due to the infinite 'lId menlS whic I a af In if erent acestlw-6u r-ht \'orJr; lilt ItlfilllilJu4gIR/lIl rail bt lUll as a 'ItUWJ.ry C01lJequnJu of.

t~ Ilar/lIlg~m~ that S!Ib5Ia~I(~ H sub trl. Why?, I. ~ •e,nfimtCOjl-mgmem ua.ll-uow.s.!auol' = call he taken as an P

III rSlOn of1:he propoSItIon Sli stance is Sll tl-c t'. 1e su ~ect winch ppearn te Ia the predicate in the l<met is relegated to the place of the subject

III the former. and what is now pl'cdicatc..-d to it is precisely a bit ofsu stantiality, its reduced and paradoxkallcftovcr which could not pass into5U 'ect, thaI is which could nOI be dissolved in thc movcmentof ncgativity andn diation, his (I is a kernel thaI rc~ists mediation. Nothing can be predicateato the-mtije as a pure Ile 'ativc vanishing poinl _ exce t this remainder ofuniversal m . mti?1l that ('annOI h... sllbj(,(tjfJ...(~ To go even I"urther~

Hcgelian sub err I . nJ)J 'al houu " 110l ~~Cl' a( mnOIl-SU) edi lil C:-PPUl udjUQU..D 'bili!.):' lbe.su If

•

•II brin

~I..'(.."LQ, ,mil th

As if the fesl of the chapter were not enough, this parting shO! is really the lillli!to flabbergast the interpreten. Most of them cautiously decided to pass o\'er itin silence.

nie infinite 'ud ment thus allo\'''~ two opposed rcadin . til o:e1aliOI fth..sides.in..representaUoll..-which..is l.he.oogni&!\·~i... III of UK' function

o urination' and the ~lJlaliY. ~whic:hwould l.hU$bc.wlUparabl~o

'''e 0111 uncuol J.h rgan.m--Question. that ~ precisely thesexuaLreJatio ­ir It were ~ssible, Bu dical inad uac of the two id~ he' 0-relation inlS... lP9 SI lly", and tho due w Hegel' useo£thcon iuona III t as men: the inlini e Juogmenrwould he (1lt/tT/) theI"ulflhnenl 01 life ,Ind the 1ulfilmclIt of Concept, but the ~peculativedimensionde >ends on ,I non·relation, it is coextensi\e with the impossibililY of correl,,­tia 1, So maybe we can get to the real sense of the metap lor If we read It III

reverse: consciousness gets stuck ill representati9uJn..s.oJ,u:.asj lies,pn..Lhfamas rrelarion ultimate! the fantas 0 a sexua lallo I ile

ecu!:ll1ve I llllking quir" dimcllsio Iiich open§".,up with the ..ecogm·ion of iLs 1111 )Ossibilit : s lecu auve thinKm emerge:Ule-y.ond-fanta!if' III a

nain eme, pCTlilation has to acccpl 'urination' a Il.S proper Site, since hchoosing tile 'sexual reliltion' it would either evaporate or gel Slu(k inrepresent<ltion ,mil Lilli; , It cal Lon! lhe;adicaJ.-ina cqa n egcli<lu «:un hou It,J;QdUC:C latrl'l i.tlill

Ilc'gd h,IS thus pmduced ,I poinl whkh mnnherent yIOg-Nher, ill OIW 'Illd the same place, lhe subje<·t ,the

J)ill"""lh nkin

enCOl/me himatel the famas of a successful sexuall,:e1alionship which fills

the laCk 0 u.s a sence - hence one ot'the mosrfamous ort:acan~ dictullIs:ere-i... 110 sexual reb.' l' Sur risin IOU h, HeReI points thi~ nl!

himse! in the conducting paragraph onhfs section, pro\iding it with anaswnishing t:xilli . n t e In lnlleJu gillem, e says, the greatest stupidity(OinCI es willi the greatest wisdom:

" .G&~\b,

purest form. We could thus propose one final \'ersion oftlle infinite judgment:~'phrenology is science', or in properly Ilegelian form, nce IS p m ..nolo

My second comment concerns a kind of postscript to legers parllngJo e.

The dialcctical wisdom that 'the highesl and the lowest coincide' is supposedly

anticipated by the 'dialcclics of nature', A poem by Heinrich Heine, 'On

Teleology', aims al this point, and since Heine "-.1.5 a connoisseur of Hegel, it

seems probable that the poem was inspired by this vcr), passage. I~ The poem isa dialogue between the poet and his belo\ed, Ihe beautiful Teute1inde. In the

first part, the poet presents a number of humorous reasons explaining whv

God created man with twoe)'cs, ears, hands and feel, but with only one mouth

and nose. He tries to demonstrate that this is all for the best, that there is a

teleological plan behind it and that God knew whal he was doing. But

Teutelinde is not convinced. She points to the paramoullt e\idence to Ihe

contrary:

friend. I h;l\e linened 10 )'ouJ and )ou ha\'e .. ell explained! how God hil$III created a paid of ~'es, ean, arms and Iegsl .. hile pro,iding man "'ith onl,lel example of mouth and n~J But no.. tell me lhe reason for Ihis:l..-hy d,lhe crealorof nature} crealeonll' ond ~urrilousrequislld that the man u5nlt

roduce his racel and allhro same lime 10 let his W<ltror?1 My dear friend, aduplicalId really be necessary herel in order 10 represem t..o funetions/ .. hich arenant for lhe slalel and for Ihe indi.idualJ III shon, for Ihe entire publicJ

n .th'e maiden! must be il$hamed .. hen she seeN how her highest ideaV is so Iri> iall

to led!! !low Ihro high altar of 10\eI is cOTJ\ened imo a mere pipl!!I Ps)chdenas lhe lildel god Amor from the dark/turns by lhe light/ofher lamp-intorJ! Thus spoke Teulehndel and 1said: Ellough!! Unreasonable as women areon'l ullderstalld, dear child} the cOllllroclion of Ihe two functiollsl whkh stan

in, h a shamefuU and revolling contrast/lhat deb<lscs humanityJ God's s)'stem,uili } his problem of economy! is Ihal both nl;lchinesl;tlternalely sene the need irque ion} the profane and Ihe sacred} the exdong ;llld lhro boring-I ner)thing

u simplified! and wisely combined:! inlhis way he produces his equalsJll,e salIn hi plays on Ihe samro b;lgpilJeJThe lender hand alld Ihe rough pawl pia)" on lh

"n fiddle.! .. ,/lhus everybody jumps, sings and y;tWlIs} and the sallle omnibut;; es us all 10 TarlanlS, 13

'" liS e ement proves Ihe opllma e<;onoIlly 01 llIC;lllS _ tie owest serves Ilehighest, lhe vulgar the sublime _ and at tht: same time. as a metaphol'icalcondensation in one privileged Spot. il makes possible Ihe COlTdation of all

wit Iall(

the sub' I{lgc rid of iI, dissol\'c it ill th ~e:

reeo IIlZ ia . pp p 'ou

III IIllteJu gment denOles this nnpoSSI 'Ity.

It is no coincidence that on the lasl pagc of TM P~rnmK1wlogyliegel comes

back to Ihe skull. He describe ntire itinerar of this work as 'Ihe Cah'al-y

of absolute Spirit' (p. 493) iterally the

skull-place of absolute Spirit, and thus althe final point con TOnts Spirit wilh

the caput morluum on which il stumbles.

Before following any further the tribulations of the Hegelian subject, let me

make two brief digressions. nu~ first one concerns the status of phrenolog}·.

This 'science' was in such vogue for some timc that it left se\eral traces in Ihe

hislOry of philosophy. Apart from Hegel, il was discussed by Maine de Biran.

Schopenhauer, Comte (who was the only one to tale it seriously and who

included il in his project of'positi\'e science'), Engels,9 and others. In spite of

its short-lived glory, it quickly passed illlo obli\'ion and acquired the reputation

of a monster science, a parody of science, a rejea of the hislory' of science, an

abandoned island of unreason in the progress of reason, its dark spot. Yet, this

image is largely misleading. a product of a cenain amnesia. This is so not only

because Gall was a highly acclaimed scientific authority of his time" ho made

many valid comributions 10 anatomy; nor because thc modern scientific view

on Ihe locali13tion of psychic fUllctions (initiated by Broca in the second half ofthe nineteenth century) relies on certain assumptions not so far from

phrenological ones. '0 It is more im 1 that if we t to re-establish

the ori ina! 'horizon {} me,mm '0 I e phreno ogJca en ea\'our w lie I ,,'as

nn ressl\'e accolll )lIs le nteTi- u nd "as

11\ )C( (e( n t e p ect 0 Enl, h enmt':n .

SUPPOSING THe SU .....CT

lence ' !J- lIOt becausc of some allc ed obscuranti5~spus&8f\b.~'dh~o

tie l(eaS 0 n t' Q I' "

seemed dan 'emus at thc tin Ille i ' 'Deal utifi f 'S5

1have tried to devc 0) elsewhcre the basic paradox thaI underlies theEnlightenment. .Gill ' lili.Y)(lintetl, in a nllllimal way, ,l~ a di,nq>ill1t

It'11,(·t'1l1 It'lmhcnal 'mtlJCfl lhat the Eillig-hlenmelll produ' d ill' 1

$) ;lnd a oh (I 111,11 l'lllt'll{cd ill Ill\' S,llll<' I{c,turt' ;I~ its IOllllleqMl1 ;llHll hatdudc" Ihl' 'U2jI'( ti and com to haullt it (the....Lat:aui,ltl ' , t (I).

Phrenology, in lite Hegelian reading, embodies this parddox pel'haps in its

auPPOa'NQ THe .ue .... CT

Iatioad 10 act:

Ie of life and death t e suo ec

takes its desliny into its own hands instead of cOlllem !<tting the differemregions ofbein 1 t (' sallie IjllJ(', this triLIWtlOl1 ;1('('()IIlP ishes a step IOto therealm of 'sclf-refl n', Tid .~~ ow

llCh occurred earlier in T ~P QlIINW-

objectivit , unha nsci usncs had torIn Irsl point if> Ihat the self-<onscioU5 subjecr

for Hegel nOI a subject 01 cQKnition (as oh'iCn ation and contemplation, but It

can only reach self·reRection al the prier- ofaclioD, Abandoning the theoreticalstance IS th ndilion or se ·re ectlon, nsclousness has to take the risk of

a passage-a-l'acU,At the end of 'observing Reason', the subj«t of Reason 'found itself in a

thing, a piece of senseless materiality, which pinpointed and highlighted the\'ery impossibility of the subject'S finding il$elf, the point that eludes thesubject. If the sub' leriotJequivalent, I .....ou cease 10 e t

)U.ti at.

•

he pleilSure ill ajoke arising from a 'shoncircuil' like this secrnslO be the grl!"3terthere alien the t....o circles of K1l!"3s thai aTe brou ht ether by the 5OImc: ..ord-

f nher apart the at , an -ihus the reater the no ot lUeam~ \ides III the tr-.Iill 0 thOOg t. We rna)- n~, 100, I al ereJO C5 areTndl.mg usc ord methOd ortilll.mg-lbm p ....hich isr~ed and 5I.udiousl) il\"oidedb) serious IhoughlU

In Freud's examples, Ihe function of Ihe shoncircuit is assumed by a word(e.g. by a pun), while in our case it is the same 'thing' which has opposedpurposes: r beller still, in ps~(hoana sis ltie phalOC"momenri reoset\ hpri\'ileged short<"inuit hetween words and things, the lace where the si nifl~t5 hold of the body.

other lunctions <lnd c1emenLS (which is precisely the fUIIClion of the 'phallicsignifier' in psychO:lIlalysis) , , i' cetio mustnevcl'thele' l)ak m,llI st~ uuhel';"uol..onl' do lbe.lw um;uonS':altemat

'"1i\iJi,,,,,uu~ip;r;.,;;',~Ul..(hc.)' Ullm tel)' caim;i . the neg-,uivc I.' the positi\{', ,ISRegel never tires of repeating. S)'C lOalla YSls takes this step on t Ie very spotindicated by Hegel and Heine: paradpxil;aLor. n.-wm l' i lIilier,the si nifier r excellence, the a IC Sl m er Yo" IIC IS I e Sl IIIfler Without"si mfied~ here the III -h s rh"lh b nt'e"oMne=lnm,I~ • d td oJo mnib C:""Wlth th

aIM's.The ege Ian alld Heineanjoke fulfils very well the cOndition that Freud

has posited:

Let us now return 10 Hegel, It seems Ihat with the infinite judgmenl, theprogress of Reason, along with its subject, got stuck. It could not swallow IheIxme. 1S How is it possible to get be ond this im? Or, indeed is il neces~a to

progre lJTt 'not-n=3 some ultlma e III lere. e, a UIC3ntt<1.tthe lj e nren nforms"lJ tha ' ha\ e nl reach&! th end 0

th fin; a of'Reason' b CTV1n RelBOn, C'"Stt'Oflct, ears e...title"'S.c actuaJtl-<1tlfln 0 rational self-consciousness through ilS o.....n activit {Or for

ut re ercnce ctlve Reason' , and t ere IS a liri.:! ana IinaIrKhvkluality which takes IISeI to be OIl in and for il$e W. a am mte teIn here isJUSt the mechanism of transition between t e concluding poim of thefirst pan and the beginning of the second part - the question of how and whythe progression beyond illfmilejudgmenl takes place,

The p:tssage from the one to the other can, on the most obvious level. beseen as a passage from observ<ltion 10 activity. The subject <Ibandons its merelyobservational 'theol'etical' attitude in favour of action. The subject of reason

.UPPO•• NO THe .us ... eCT

en In hd

, I introdu e's ill ted a~ is

e em maliC I UT t,\II'I', mili.11 prublem I

Thw nown,

e .\'illK-!Q1' illld.l;at.e" buLJ,i .sempty necesslly IS ultimately rea lL<ltlOn 0 In IIlI e

"tal i~ wll('(t 1ttrf'l-'lly; fill' Ill'tl'''"~, ,ilC', ,tIlel [h(' lili(', "' 11I,11 lal ,tlMl1I( win

.a"no! ~a~ ",lUll il elo.:~, ah,olute pUll' ;-.Jolioll il~dl \il'''I'd ,", [melt'] """'alai, Se;

"w'ehnule rnlle fjtr;njj 'flb,t] ..l I d,llioll II I,ll j, ,il11plt: ,mel {'IIl!,l,. hut also irre~i~tibl

llt1 imperlurbahle, ",ho,;(' ,,"011.. i, 111l'ld the II<>lhillgl,r" of imli\idu;l!i . p. 1

leuUlal I h~' pa~o;age 10.1' I,nn i~ al the sallie timo:" a p,l"~agt' °0 t'nJO\ melll I h., I hlng turn" 0111 to be

llit' I,!ate ",here the heleTOj{o:"lwlt\ nl t'IIJO\","111 1'1 In~,nh<:'rlln conceptual

(l nitlo

Let us now briefly consider lhe next section, the hrsl part of 'acting Reason',

which bears the title' ~ I . " In UlGlniantheory, the object

a is inherently link.ed with the notion of Jouimmct. with the paradoxical

dimension of enjoyment. ,II, III his 'irmn,," .\ \'11, J:t'm~" it( til pIle"f', .dean de\e1op, 111(' notIon 01 til(' ohJ(·t\ 'J laking: ,I~ Ius ~tartil1g' poi l

Hegeb Illasterisla\e dialt'cti IS' r::l oXlca 0 eel emer es 1 ere as t e

H' .1 the

subject transgresses the limit that constitutes it and thus risks surrendering

what mak.es it a subjec t I. n r ,II/C ~d dC I m on \ .It tht' prill'

dC~lll)I'(li\dtil .

But there is another. more profound ambivalence in this passagc to action.

een thal at 'in n', the subject had reached an

extreme an Into era) e pomt; the point were. as a 'theoretical' subject of

cognition, it had to confront its pure exteriority. Thought had produced a

moment of its own exteriority, its radical heterogeneity, the limit of the

categories of Reason which relied on the idemiw of thought and being.. which is not and cannot be,

concenlUaof pure con

maml.

tindlll ence, t e passage

Ig Ie \11 lJoCU e'( ,11

.KlIon II' 0 Idrd~ It ( '1m.,' ~11,td Xlt€llI . lin drdble pointoft!tllllj.;llI-

,J.IJ, >-,fl,,' ,,·tun,· . " ,0/>, .Thesu~ectcan

reali/e use on y t rollg I anion. ut l ere IS a moment 0 'ersatz' im'ohed in

aning; an escape from the impossible lask of thinking the object. of

confronting the Real. By actin the ~

,undam lIal f

celllg rOIll su ~ectl\'e (es uuuon, tie su ~eCl p unges Itself into action,

hoping to presen'e its SlatuS, unaware that this will entail the destitution

anvway I tum I' tim, lIOt onll til(' re.lli/dtioll of Ihou~ht,but a re,IIII<lUOn lha

lIlerg-e';1I ,I POlllt \\h(,[(, thoughl lalb,.n tlit, point of the umhillkdhlt" I\u

.1111011 fail, ,1' ""t'll, it don 1101 ple!'ene the ~ul~ecti\'il)'IIho,e '("xpres~ion'it i~;

ithllllg'310)~thatwi cntuall produ IC b'euofSp' It.

The I diau' , s 'choana! sis b its \'CI nature a. l ncij the u-

ailed aus are rcall . c- ' .fa~'a' . s), '1'1'axis'

a wa s turns OUI lO a ,IS 10 use trachey's nco oglsm~e'reuc la 'r I i'Ll/1m , h{' ,lit f.HlllOr ('main ':II ttie lev '~'fiona, k', 01':11 the

'\t'l of it~ I olltepl; i, (,Ill<lils ,I /";,11 [rom Ih(' le\'d of the lOll( ('pt into 'lhillghlMJd

IhnKJIFI/), the otiwi of Ih Oll(') The side 0 t 'I lal 01

heteroKcllell in rel;lliotl to lhe ,nn,C)1 It111, lC

rl

J gmeTI t'\.t'~'lt\ 1'1 lustl .Olltl'pt 11,111' "rn1<'11 illlO putT ;uul em!'lng. t11(." (.once 11 IlIIn~"(1 ill1tllllill~h.otltl, .1 It'III('11 (:••m,'\

,. *UPPO.,NO TH ••U ...... CT M ..... .,.N .,O ..... A

CIn,Oeposill\

•

exiSlence of lhe v.mishillg lIeg-dti\'e point of pure illdividualit ), while acLioncan be taken as an embodiment oflhe 'ud mel "indi'idua il\ is ulli\ersalit\ '"

neM:t Thill t .mak ~~Ir tlnl l';: rhe imenIII 1\"liluatit Ii ':l thc-goa.1 tllatolsslp.<Jt Itsel nt6"an empt)' uni\"ersalityas soon as it acquires a positi\"eexisten lurnin j 'lI\oaT in h ,~sub'ectdoesnotesca theCollce I(be'ond re thoor alldso n)o-~U1te he

o sil ,li7e!theCon _J..The immediate leap-from mntingency to necessilY indicates the nature of".r.""(,p

Ilegelian necessity, runity is not Jimlll.v of' (Jud to conliIlKrIl0', it rtaliziI It

Comin enc appears 10 ave vamshed he~(atlsp'!?~d..!nto el~g~lt.lurne(

into nep;:;.s.it Ul"IU H:...pnc~ ntammaung ne(iCsslly; IlCGCSSJty ames as .ulllversalized eontingenc 'comin en in,.gen l' In infinite 'ud mem, t epure COllce t a no relation witTl tll onungen ling; there_common measure, but then throug action Ihe twO coincided" Thus we havedthe wn·rcl;wo 0 jmmediat olllooenCe.-ffegelmaimain ough.t at what is al stake here is rerisel the elller ence of a relation. This relatiocan perhaps Sl understood as what emerges in this re\cNaI~ the relatiobet....een the non-reLttion of t.... o in«:lIlullellsumble entities and Iheir coin'dence; the relatiOIl bel .... een the 1..... 0 judgments. infinile judgment and itsreversal ...... hich makes it possible 10 think pure difference - the differenbet .....een the Con<cpl and its radical other, Ihe Concept and the Thing, I

Concept and wh,lt (anllOl be collcepluah/cd - as a concepwal differene act thus rea izes leterogenelty by suppressing It. lt accomplishes the

s ep from conceptuality into its other by at the same time realizing theneept. It realizes the Concepl as something radically opposed, as a dead

niversality. an alien entilY in which the subject is lost u as a 'tI'TOl-~

;:;~<.il~liIl~",,~ep.j Qud ilJIMn&t"p .e act ental the death of subjectlvlt ,'ho.....e\er. M:lf--consciO\lSness has in

llull wrvi\C:::d this lo~~: or this n~lt) or pure unn~h '60um esseneliS reAecuon 0 consaousn 11Q.Jue un edge that ne SI IS iIU

is a new ann 0 consaousness' (p, 21 CO!lsciousness had to perish in its acI had todieasthe·for·it~lf0 pure IIIdividualil)-..... hile·in-itself itsun"i\ed i

o ..... n death. B) this suni\'al, Ihe phenomenological experience can cominue, it

call pass into a new 'flgure of cOllsdousness'. a int call be learned Ihrough Lone's own de tho

ac Hed. buwn a double-sense. fiuL. " "edby realizing somethin~ ~o'~h~,~,·~,Em-;;;O;:\Vhatthe-subjecL-wamed, iLbt:Ought-death <llhet.thallli~, Second.

it raiIe'a III a more fundamental sense· SIllCC the s~j ct urvlV(' Its i:leattl, t ..~.t1ld'--indud S- a ne aUve mornen '\.it 'n dialecti n th alie.

COOL.....

Ifd SIle to it se -con~ousness can enVIS3 e Its own essence. A -.~

Necessity is. Oil the one hand, the annihilation of individualit}. thedestruction of the subject and its hope of finding itself in the individuality oflife. The realialion of the oalmortifies Ii\"in individualit alld turns it into alife! nweM:l. I he mereh ~inKle indi\idualil\ mstea of ha\in"elken the plulIl(c rom et rhf'on 11111) Life. hOI., thcrdore realh onl}

plunKed into lOIl\><iou~n(",of ill. own Iifde,sn~s and hil\ ,1\ ils lot onh' emp!and alien nCtesuty. a thad actuality sub eo was S(""1Il r

I('asure lit alon ' Wit 1 the d~

ouusanu a lellla! enJoJ:melJ t. . au..ame .oul), a e.-pncthe actlon IS Its suiciue 'It cxpc,-ienrcs the double meaniul{ impli<:it in what it

did, viz. to have lakm Its life: illook life. hut ill doing so it rC;lll} laid hold rcleall p. "2 ; translation a apted), It wallled to ta e 0 <l 0 Its life, but dlisentai ed.literall ,L1king its life.

'his dialeclitS (If anion is in a.. Wi!. .•malo ous 10 that (If 'sense rerL1irll)'There, tOO, consciousness tried immedialel) to grasp individuality, t e IHngimmediacy, but instead it got only a lifeless uni\'ersality in which all immediacywas lost. But in sen nat Dsciousn o~ ofknowl ere It Isco\"e at ~'O Here,ronSClOusness turns a.....a\ from .....OIds..... hich hale prO\Mlncapableolcopmwith immediac\', to art ion: its forlllukl ..hifts to 'In the Ix.-ginning .....as Ihe act', asthe famous line in Faust's monologue Roes l; a1.es Ihe piaimp? S1 le...,xeaf;:W"ord which is. alw lac ·mg;-¥el-the.-a docs nan tie t I,a til (am t '1I1m engend ~1e.W <lIa cctie.

This realization 0 infiniteJudgment is, on the other hand, lheemergence ofa relillion, Bnithung, as lIegel says in the passage above, relaliWh! pwhere no r laLion was possible...11l-infiuite-judgrneIl\. lac on Ie one I(S In. once tua Ity as such, tne arer 0 ullI\·ersalityand"ecessit). nd onthe other Side the T1l1n~asa.poin Cpur~nungell Ihe itiy xislenceof a ure ne th'e illl of individuality. 0 .... in the t:a!>e of action. I

tarting poilU is ure indi\idualit\ and an attempt to realile it be)'ondeoneepluaht\ b\ reae mg for immediacy. bUlthe product ofthn realiJ..ation ISprecisely ttl pu~ uni\"er<;aIiIY of the contepl turned illlO being, n«essi", fate('a sheer le-dP imo ils .iIllithesis'. says Ilegel; ibid" The passa e mlo ihllo,g.lc,,..,,,i~Uir on u. ilic ur; M alizauoll 0

in IVleua Ity. Its lea into an empt 1I1l1\'ersallly" The contingency thatpertaine to the rhing as an immediate bein is transformt'd by action into tlexisting concept governed by necessil ulg 'com h Illllversal

lin m w Ie 1 conun enc and neceSSll cOlllcl~e,

ctlon enacts mflnite judgment by n:versin '. 'SpIrit IS a bone'"o"""m;'a'lleva:oe translated as uni\ersalit) IS lIIdi\"ii:tu,dit (t at IS. as

.,

Notes

alternative, which they take for the most pal'l as an indisputable and self­

evident presupfXtSilion. This image is the accepted doxa of virtually all

poslStructura!ist readings of Hegel (and also others, for example, Heideg­ger's), while Hegel's defenders, on the Olher hand, have difficulty disentan­

gling themseh·cs from the traditional framework, thus missing the best points

ill Hegel erhaps the simple" ,lIls\\el' th.u I (,Ill prm i,ionall\ propose here is

10 be sought in the \en lrrrdllnbu.ty 0 th" altatlatwt'. l n una"n;'b~;~~~~~~~

III h hl'I'I'~I<!n~<OiU!'i-iW;hl;,!hi",;n be brought ~~romi\in , bu

e extr~me cnslon

"ffi~~~~~p sed t6 He~ labrrimh,""nd"

ancll:Ud up..in.,~om em -

i";i~~J>i~";:<:l"Ji~ to the

l~~~~~~~: HeKel'ent nse rna ~ t e t wa to 'sah'a e' hete~l::nei J-'ocusing 0

he[(~rogeneil\, making it into a \lo~.IIl, rum the ri~k of 10 inK It' r "es lle

on ..... ~~~~~~5~~~ h in I tque ....uet b IIlStstlll' 11 Ulll\ersa collce tnah t1Je an

id blunaer. he <Illt'mpt to fix i' as a 'concep( or a

genet 011 ~Iog-"n (Derrid<l', fa d,ffnanrr nd 1.\('L\ld·~k diffnnul ilre t ....o possib

.... a\sof doing this) ends up dilisipaling it. lIece''o<Iri'' running. h\ a roundal;1.\ and ilgainst the be!>l illlemiom of its proponents. IIlIO the Hegelian pUlll

of cOllceptual determination, I ht' solntion lo'o('s ....hat it .... as supposed to

reSfue. Maybe the irrcdutibihh' 01 I It'J;d's,Ilnbi\<Ilente get;; much closer to tbt

heterogeneous, ..... hlch, III ils 'l,tlcl"I' emergCJl(e, le-eps dissohing in tlie

conceptual progression, hut tlMt pm H's~ioll ne\ertheless maintains it as itsinl1el' limit, an amhiguous tolldilion Ih,tt lnumh it. I\y dissipating the

IIlbiguin', one loses b 1.

1. One of the ,"ery few readers who did nOt need to pin<:;h himself WaS Sla\'oj Zitek. whomaintai"ed. rather, that notllinK less could be expected of llegel. See 1"~ S"b1i~ 0l1tcl ofJdetJlog'j (London ,"ut New Yorl:: VCI$O 1989),I'P. 207-12 and l'orTMyK1IowNI1l What nryDc (London and Ne..' Yorl:: Ver50 t99I). PI'. 90.119. My reading here is >"ery m...chmdd>led to his; b... t wl,ile he hiKhlightsjust one point in Hegel, I try 10 sit ... ate this point ina larger l>crSIx:t:ti,·e and t draw sliKhtly differcllt rondusions.

2. :n,e be.. and most extensh·e account of phr..nology, its goals :md m..thods. iu risc and fall.liS OOcl:grO"'1Id and inll ..... IIC(;. is 10 l>c foulld in Georges Lamen-La"..... lIisu,;rt tU /aphr",oW~ (l"<lTis: I'UF 1970). l.;onterl·Laur....·as a pupil of boIh Cang... ilhem andIlyppohtc, 50 he W;lS ..·ell a"-dl·C of the IhCQI'CI;Gl-1 dimension, of the matter and wellacquainted ..'nh Ikgd·s trc<tllnent of it

SUPPOSING TH••U ...... CT

'successful" act would coincide with the subj«t's suicide, the only way for thesubject 10 turn itself effectivel.l' illlo a Thing. bUla..succes.~fulact would also bethe end of tile dialectic. Ul( id.... a~ the l.dtania ictum goes. is the ol1h fu

succnslul atl. I he operation failed. the JMlient sun i\So what happens to the subject who had to lose ilSelf in the act by turning

ilSelf into a 111ing, but ne\'ertheless SUI"',i\'oo ilS own death? T equlrcxlce hic.b enuiled. \' .l e next Sle (the next section bean; lI' taILan,?>lf.'r.

"",",,!'~f-~v:q th !robJ' lla\'h litter 0 tfle ex >enencech()<;\s w .ell IS b preQl>Cl nnihilation:o[thIe. e~ubedw' leasureu n W dt

eKe ca s se1 -<aileen IS aifi lomam, lOnoft~ (:K I esus~ns ille\t:nn....I ...· WOI:eJunmle "Hed imo the s mbolic: what a ared as a limi ..wboJ

s m'b9-rr (fle s mtiOh 111e nOi - 1 e n 1-sym 17,a e as Its own mOlllell nil' Suhjl'"<"t .... ill, through thlhe experiente .

)("tomt: the ,ubJt~t of commUnil), uni\erYl and indi\lduallll nnt'. and tht'

I hin ..... illlllw LIllO lhe ,ub·en's o .... n Ihill~, 'lhe (hill~ ibclf ~,

rat e:r un onunate! rende:~as matter at an Iller he <!tU(jO

of all and ttlt'1)"'lt' (p 2.;2), olCll\l1l "n ~ing in one. 111e nCU"'.l1\' f.lihne 0

(lion will there he een a, uddin a pnSili\e result. tht, production 01 '111('

tb n ,

, finally, llhc'~~~~',':;l:~~~~pure: form in infillitejudgmem? Are lhe

,m til ame ture? I -rs--the lace 0 e d's ultimate am I ui ,where the wa s orinterpret,llloll Jar . ItHegel in the last install rli! tJ", rof

t omogtll~OUS, consummaung l e reduction of the heterogeneous to theuniversal self-medi,lIion of the Concept? Or is the only way adequately to get

his point to take him as "hi Ihi'IRa of the h~taogellefJU.S' who draws a limit to

conceptuill universality, a limit that constitutes the Concept and keeps il

inherently open to its 0lller? Is the Aufllebullg - the Hegelian geslUre par

excellence, the gesture of simultaneous retaining and suppression - the locusof lhe Ilcgclian fallacy, the disavowal of an internal impossibility, or is iI, onIhe contr,u'y, the inscription of this impossibilily into the heart of diakctiC,

sustaining it as its principle rather than disavowing it? Is this alternativeexclusive, an 'eithcdor' where one has to take sides? Is it exhaustive?

The majol-ity of cOlllemporary and most influential interpreters - p,lrticu­lady in these postnl(xlerll times when avoidance of 'grand narrati\'es' :mdterrol· of uni\crs,;llit} reign supreme - are firmly in favour of the first

••

M""OIlN DO .. "",

matcnaJir.a.tioli tn MeplnSio. GOCIhe's originallUrIls out tobe more Ilcgelian than Hcgd's\'ersion of it: the fan has already occurred, the llc"il arrives too late: he has only to realizewhal ..-as 'in-itself' already accomlllishcd.

19. There arc sr\'enl m$UUKCS where Hegel aC«)lllphshcs Iht: passaoge from one 'figure ofronKlousncss' 10 anotht:r by the re\'cnalof a judgmcnL MoM memor.tbly. tht: passagefrom 1m, Grttl<. aesthetic re!lgKlflltlioChnstianity <IS the ...,..ealcd rehglOn (in the chapt:eron 'Rdigion) hinges on sIKh a TC\-ersal. TI10cjudgnlCnt 'Ihe sdf is abs.olute Being' is tht:ultimate point of Antiqu'tv, Iht: pomt reached in IhcCr~lcomcd)'and its 'levily' (po 453);Ihe gesture of Christianil) IS 10 rC\'ene this judgment: 'Ihe Absolule IS the Self - therC\'ealcd rc-!ig;on is based on the sul!jccti\-a.tion of the ahJo!ule bcyood, its cmbodiment ina mortal individu..al. One o:ould say: 'Iht: binh of Chnstian1ly from tht: spinl of romcdy:

" Ntw I'f1fYOlllwm. 14ng Nighl', OcWbtr, 58

8UPPO.,NQ THII .. u .... IlCT••

3, ('.colli Wilhelm Fri~ri<;h lIegel. n, l'IIn,,,,,*,,,,,,,"fC a/Sptnl. t ..... ,,~_ A, V Mill(', (Oxford:Oxford Un'.en;ly Press 1977), p. 193, All f"nhe, n::fcn:ne"" wIll be lothi, "dnslalion and.. ill be m:«k in ,he body of the lext

4, Il.-gd. for nample. cven suggests a pouibk utcnsion of phrrnology: '~rom this aspeaphrenology is capalkofstill grcatcrcxl);lnsion; rorin ,h" fin!: ins"oncc i,~ms tOCOflfioril!ol"lflo conn«ting a bump [in t~ skullj .. ith a propen)' in the -"'_ •••dll'odtial. th,iIl is. the:md.\·tdual possesses both. But Il3lunil 01'" C\'cryday phrn>olog)- ... already goes ~oodthIS restriction. It not onh dccbrn that a rhc'lling fdlo.. hu a bump;os bill ;u your fW~hind his CU. but a1~ aneru ,holt. not l~ unfailhfulwifc hcndf. but thccMhc,ooujugalpany. ha$ a bump on 1M fO«'hc'ad' (1'_ 2(3).

5. 'Bul organic Nallirc h;u 110 hUlo'): II falls from its uni>ns;d. fn>m lifo:. dirtttiv into mesingkness of existence. "nd the momc-nts of simple d~ermin.l\entU, and th<- singkorganic 1ifr unitrd in Ihis :Ktu.allly, producr 1m, pnxas of Ikromlng ~rr1y <IS aronllngent lI)()\·emcnl ...• (PI" 178-9).

6. Karl Marx and Friedrich [nvls. W.....v (Berlin: Dietz Verbg 1956--69), ."01. 23: p.66.7. Marx and Engd~, W.....v. \"01. 23; .70.8. 'Uuullhuo Ute toei¥td RI TKJ(

m of I I ... Lc1 usonly oolmder. e.g.,t e trrms acu\'e an p;usi\e .... hich dominate e"e'1'lhing Ihal ....dS thought about tm,relation bel"'CCIl form and malter. a fundamrntal relation 10 which e"ery slcpofl'latoandthen of ArislOtle concerning Ihe nature of things rden. It is visible. p<llpable. thai Ihescstalements arc supported only by the fanlasy by which they have trk-d to SlIPlllement .... hatGIll in no way be said. namely. Ihe sex,,;Ll relation' (Jacques Lacan. EllcQrf, texl establishedby Jacques-Alain Miller [I'aris: Seuil 1975). p, 76).

9. Sec Marx and E.ngels. W...-.tt. \'01. 20: pp. 338-9.10. On this issue. see Alasdair Maclnlyr kol " inlftgtf: A CQ/ltctl/m of

Cnlical E$.WJS' ed. A. Macintyre (Notre Dame; Notre Dame m'crsily !'rcss 1972), pp.219-36.

II. Sec: my 'T or--lbrtl'n. nmnM,

(Summer 1991). pp, 4j... an Sha e wit(Fall 1991). pp. !>---23.

12, Thc poem. which was IKK published during Heine's lifetime, ..-as probably ....illen in Ihe1830s. The rough u"nsbuon IS mme.

13, Ileinril:h Heine, 1V"*t (Winbaden: R. Lo..'il n.d.), w.&. II; pp. 466-7.14. Sigmund Freud. TItt Ptlic,," FrTWIl"bmry, cd. Angda Richards (London: IInmonds-

;';O~"=h;)'~'~ol~.~6~'~P~P~'~'6S-~~9~.;;;:'~~;!.::i::';;[;;loe~~~r;1;!1=:~~t~~:;,:~)15, dW:annol bes..allowcd.<lSil ......e ...lUch rcm:unul"",l in Iht: gulk1 ofQ\I II SJl. nan

an. text established by Jacques-Abin Miller [London; Hoganh J>rc:ss and 1m,InSlilute of Ps)'coo..AnaI)~.1977), p. 270). It is no coincidence that Lacan uses tht: samemcuphor oflhe bone for lhe- ot;cet II. "Ille subjea: of Rca$Oll. <IS $, is of o:oursc Iht:su~of the signifier.

16. Jacques Lacan, L·t'......, lk Ia /JJ1CJlIltuUP", leltl established by Jacques-Alain ~hller (Paris:Seuil 1991),

17. )'or a more delailed account, IICC Illy 'Lord and Kondsman on the Couch'. A 0lI'nC<l1t}Q\lmtJI&fSnnUllIQ, "01. 9. nos 2-3 (1993). PI'. 69-90.

~ . liege! here commits one of his famous misquotC$, rCCitlling from memory a fe.... lines fromPaWl: 'It despises imclleel and sciened Ihe supreme gifts of manl it has gi"cn itselflo thedniU ,md must perish' (po 218). Lcaving aside the fact Ihat lIegel mixes up I'lmtmfl(Reason) in the original with Vtr51mld (imcllccl) in the "cry chapter on ReOlsoll .....1' aremo,'e aSlOnished lO fi",llhal lhe $Ccond Ilan of the quotation says exactly Ihe opposite ofwhal Hegel says: 'U"d Mil' tr SIck IWell mchl bm Tnifti iilHrgtbnJEr ",iif/It dQCh ..'gnmMgth,,!' (And even if he had nOI g],'ell himsclf to the devill he would nc\'cohelc" ha.'e toIlCrishl) Faust is doomed even befole Mcphislo appears. The spirll thaI pushed himbeyolld theory, from words to action, from knowledge 10 enjo)tllem, only found its