warren goldstein messianism and marxism

7/14/2019 Warren Goldstein Messianism and Marxism

1/36

MESSIANISM AND MARXISM:

WALTER BENJAMIN AND ERNST BLOCHSDIALECTICAL THEORIES OF SECULARIZATION

Warren S. Goldstein

Messianism is the red secret of every revolutionary . . . 1

Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity

Among 20th century intellectuals, Walter Benjamin and Ernst Bloch are

unique in the problem they present us: they mixed in their writings

Judeo-Christian Messianism and Marxism. Both Benjamin and Bloch

believed that Marxism is a secularization of Judeo-Christian Messianism.

Benjamin wrote: Marx has secularized the messianic time in the con-

ception of the classless society.2 However, Benjamin and Blochs con-

ception of secularization is not unilinear; it does not develop in a one-way

direction from the sacred to the profane. Rather, their theories of sec-

ularization are dialectical; they view the sacred and the profane as hav-

ing a contradictory relation in which there is a dynamic tension between

the sacred and the profane. The central argument of this article is that

Benjamin and Blochs dialectical theories of secularization explain their

mixture of Messianism and Marxism.

One of the debates that has taken place over Benjamin is on thecompatibility of Messianism and Marxism. Jrgen Habermas, Rolf

Tiedemann, Richard Wolin and Stephen Eric Bronner argue that

Messianism and Marxism are incompatible while Irving Wohlfarth,

Michael Lwy and Susan Buck-Morss argue that they are complemen-

tary. According to Rolf Tiedemann in Historical Materialism or Political

Messianism, when Benjamin used theological or mystical concepts, they

have a materialistic intent. He argues that Benjamin sought to unitethe irreconcilable.3 Grounding himself on the Tiedemann essay, Stephen

Eric Bronner argues that Benjamins attempt to fuse theology and his-

torical materialism into a messianic materialism is not only question-

able but contradictory.4 Habermas believes that Messianism and Marxism

are incompatible and the attempt to synthesize them is doomed to fail-

ure. This attempt must fail, because the anarchistic conception of now

times that intermittently break through fate from above as it were, can-

not simply be inserted into the materialistic theory of social develop-

Critical Sociology 27,2


2/36

messianism and marxism 247

ment.5 Richard Wolin agrees but for a diVerent reason; he argues that

Benjamins conservative attitude toward tradition cannot be reconciled

with Marxist politics.6 The overriding opinion, according to Susan Buck-

Morss, is that Benjamins attempt to fuse theology and historical mate-rialism was bound to failure.7

On the other side of this debate stand Irving Wohlfarth, Michael

Lwy, and Susan Buck-Morss. Wohlfarth thinks that Marxism and the-

ology are not at odds with each other.8 Both Bloch and Benjamin,

according to Michael Lwy, regarded historical Messianism and Marxist

historical materialism as the narrowest of complementarities.9 For

Buck-Morss the conclusion that Marxism and theology are incompati-

ble is not inevitable. Without theology (the axis of transcendence)

Marxism falls into positivism; without Marxism (the axis of empirical

history) theology falls into magic.10

This debate poses the wrong question. What is important is not

whether Messianism and Marxism are compatible but the relationship

between these two interrelated but opposed philosophies of history. The

problem with this debate is not only that it is unsystematic, but it also

lacks a framework. The theory of secularization provides the missing

framework that can be used to analyze the relationship between Messia-

nism and Marxism in the writings of Benjamin and Bloch.

Karl Lwith argues that Marxism is a secularized form of Jewish

Messianism. Communism, which is the goal of Marxs historical mes-

sianism, is a Kingdom of God, without God and on earth.11 The

driving force behind the conception of history as class conict is a

transparent messianism. Though perverted into secular prognostica-tion, the Communist Manifesto still retains the basic features of a mes-

sianic faith.12 Bloch describes Lwiths conception of secularization,

which he uses in an attempt to discredit Marxism, as shallow.13

Messianism and Marxism share in common a parallel structure in

their philosophy of history. In the Bible, history begins with paradise

from which there is a fall. According to Marx and Engels, the earliest

form of society is primitive communal society in which there is no pri-vate property, no classes and no state. The beginning of class society

can be seen as a fall from paradise. In Judeo-Christian Messianism, the

Messiah only enters during periods of disaster (Unheil) and brings aboutsalvation (Heil).14 In Marxism, revolutions occur during crises and bringabout social transformation. Messianism hopes in the coming of the

Messiah while Marxism hopes in the coming of the revolution. In both

Messianism and Marxism, at the end of the history there is a returnto the beginning of history. In Messianism, there is a return to paradise.


3/36

248 warren s. goldstein

In Marxism, there is the reestablishment of communism (however, this

time it is industrialized).

Unilinear theories of secularization are an inadequate explanation of

Benjamin and Blochs mixture of Messianism and Marxism. Benjamin,as Theodor W. Adorno indicates, engages in a secularization of the-

ology in order to save it. At the same time, he analyzes profane texts

as if they were holy.15 Michael Lwy writes:

. . . in this German-Jewish thought, there is as much making sacred of

the profane as there is secularization of the religious: the relationship

between religion and utopia is not here, as in the case of secularization,

a one-way movement, an absorption of the sacred by the profane, butrather a mutual relationship that links the two spheres without suppress-

ing either one.16

Benjamin and Blochs theories of secularization run simultaneously in

two opposite directions; not only do they secularize theology but they

theologize Marxism. When describing Benjamin and Bloch theories, one

not only needs to think in terms of secularization but deseculariza-

tion, not only in terms of disenchantment but reenchantment. ForBenjamin and Bloch, the spheres of the sacred and the profane are not

simply interlinked but dialectically interconnected.

The Theological-Political Fragment provides a clue to the struc-

ture of Benjamins dialectical theories of secularization. This fragment,

which describes the relationship between the messianic and the profane,

is a key to Benjamins entire work.

If one arrow points to the goal toward the profane dynamic acts, andanother marks the direction of Messianic intensity, then certainly the quest

of free humanity for happiness runs counter to the Messianic direction;

but just as a force can, through acting, increase another that is acting in

the opposite direction, so the order of the profane assists, through being

profane, the coming of the Messianic Kingdom. The profane, therefore,

although not itself a category of this Messianic kingdom, is a decisive cat-

egory of its quietist approach.17

The messianic and profane move dialectically in two opposite direc-

tions.18 Both forces through acting increase the intensity of the one mov-

ing in the opposite direction. While they are opposed, they are mutually

reinforcing; the profane assists in the coming of the Messianic kingdom.

The messianic and profane have a contradictory relation the resolution

of which is a kingdom of heaven on earth.

Benjamin and Bloch viewed secularization as a contradictory process.

The contradictions of secularization are expressed in the dialectical rela-


4/36


tionship between the sacred and the profane. Benjamin and Blochs

dialectical theories of secularization express a constant tension between

the profane and sacred realmbetween Messianism and Marxism. One

is the secularization of the other; they are dependent on each other butopposed to one another. The dialectical theory of secularization hopes

in a resolution of this dialectical conict. However, the dialectic remains

unresolved and therefore the contradictions need to be expressed.

Benjamin and Bloch were not fusing Messianism and Marxism but

expressing this contradictory relationship.

Benjamin and Bloch have several dialectical theories of seculariza-

tion. In Walter Benjamin, they are contained in his philosophy of lan-

guage, theory of experience, theory of dreams, and aesthetic theory. In

Ernst Bloch, there is a dialectical theory of the secularization of Judeo-

Christian Messianism into Marxism. After a brief history of the rela-

tionship between these two intellectuals, the remainder of this article

will focus on Benjamin and Blochs dialectical theories of secularization

and their juxtaposition of Messianism and Marxism.

I. Intellectual History

Walter Benjamin and Ernst Bloch belonged to The Generation of

1914.19 They were part of a group of Jewish intellectuals which Michael

Lwy divides into three groups: the anarchist religious Jews (Franz

Rosenzweig, Martin Buber, and Gershom Scholem); the religious Jewish

anarchists (Gustav Landauer, Franz Kafka, and Walter Benjamin); and

the atheist-religious, anarcho-Bolshevik Jews (Georg Lukcs, Ernst Tollerand Ernst Bloch).20 Benjamin and Bloch were the links that tied this

group together.

Anson Rabinbach describes the spirit of this group as modern Jewish

Messianism.21 It captured a generation of Jewish intellectuals before

World War I. According to Rabinbach, Ernst Bloch and Walter Benjamin

represent a pure type of this thinking.22 Only Bloch and Benjamin

brought a self-consciously Jewish and radical Messianism to their polit-ical and intellectual concerns.23

Ernst Bloch met Georg Lukcs while attending the private seminar

of Georg Simmel in Berlin in 1909. 24 The two of them went together

to Heidelberg in 1913 and become regular guests at the home of Max

and Marianne Weber on Sunday afternoons.25 Bloch made a particu-

lar impression on Marianne Weber: a new jewish philosopher hap-

pened to be therea young man with an enormous crown of black

hair and an equally enormous self-assurance. He evidently regarded


5/36


himself as the precursor of a new Messiah and wanted to be recog-

nized as such.26 Bloch scared away many of the guests from the Weber

household. Max Weber is reported to have said: I would gladly send

a porter to Blochs house, who would pack his suitcase and bring himto the train station, so that he goes away.27

World War I polarized Bloch and Benjamin from the older genera-

tion of German intellectuals who were their mentors (Georg Simmel,

Max Weber, and Gustav Wyneken). Before World War I, Benjamin

was active in Gustav Wynekens left-wing faction of the German Youth

Movement but broke with him over his position toward the war.28 Bloch

had a similar break with Simmel who came to Heidelberg and held a

pro-war lecture, which Bloch described as all German to an excess.

Bloch wrote a letter to Simmel in which he expressed his opinion on

Simmels position toward the war: The metaphysical absolute is for

you now the German trenches!29 As for Weber, Bloch reported that

when the war broke out, he received us . . . in his reserve oYcer uni-

form.30 Marianne Weber confesses that it was bitterly painful for

Max that he could not lead a company of troops into the battleeld.31

Benjamin and Bloch, on the other hand, went into exile in Bern,

Switzerland during World War I to avoid the draft.32 They met each

other there in the spring of 1919.33 According to Benjamin, Bloch was

the only person of signicance I have gotten to know in Switzerland.34

Bloch rst mixed Messianism and Marxism in Spirit of Utopia (Geistder Utopie) rst published in 1918. Written during World War I and theGerman and Russian Revolutions, it was Blochs experience of war and

revolution that led him to his Messianic Marxism. With Benjamin thismixture did not occur until after the economic crisis of 1923 which he

described as a Trip through the German Ination. It has been argued

that it was Asja Lacis and Bertolt Brecht who inuenced Benjamin

towards Marxism.35 Equally as important was the inuence of Bloch

and Lukcs.36 Bloch inspired Benjamin to read Lukcs History and ClassConsciousnesswhile they were both on vacation in Capri.37 Around this

time, a split began to occur in the works of Benjamin between a meta-physical and Marxist perspective.38 This split was a result of his move

toward Marxism while he retained a metaphysical worldview. It is likely

that while Bloch encouraged Benjamins move towards Marxism, he also

respected his retention of theological elements which he himself shared.

In 1926, both Benjamin and Bloch stayed in the same hotel Paris

where they spent much time with each other. This closeness led to

conict.39 While acknowledging the need for distance, Benjamin revealed:

Bloch is extraordinary and to me the most knowledgeable of my work,


6/36


very venerable (he is much better informed than myself, then he does

not only know everything by heart that I have written, but every spo-

ken word from years ago).40

Benjamin and Bloch took part in Hashish experiments together, whichwere conducted by physicians Ernst Jol and Fritz Frnkel in 1928.41

Both Benjamin and Bloch incorporated the intoxication of hashish into

their theories of dreams and experience.

During the late twenties, Benjamin rst contemplated joining the

Communist Party. He also considered moving to Palestine.42According

to Asja Lacis The path of a normal thinking persons leads to Moscow,

but not to Palestine.43 While Lacis claimed responsibility for Benjamin

not going to Palestine, his trip to Moscow to visit Lacis made him

decide not to join the party.44

Blochs Spuren (1930) is a collection of aphorisms similar to BenjaminsEinbahnstrae(1927). It is in this text where Bloch bears the closest resem-blance to Benjamin.45 This led Benjamin to believe that Bloch had pla-

giarized from him and thus caused conict between them.46

Both Benjamin and Bloch went into exile in March 1933 as a result

of the Nazi seizure of power. Benjamin went into exile in Paris where

he became aYliated with the Institute for Social Research (the Frankfurt

School), which itself was in exile at Columbia University in New York.

The core members of the institute were Max Horkheimer and Theodor

W. Adorno. Bloch went into exile to Switzerland but was forced to

leave after being arrested under suspicion of being an agent for the

Communist International.47 He went to Vienna, where his wife Karola

became a courier to Poland for the Communist Party.48 They left inthe summer of 1935 due to the rise of Nazism in Austria and went to

Prague where Karola continued her work.49

Benjamin and Bloch saw each other for the last time in Paris dur-

ing the summer of 1935.50 Both expressed a deep remorse about the

tensions in their relationship. Despite this, they both showed a certain

resignation; neither was willing to sever contact with each other and

both wanted to continue their relationship as imperfect as it was.51

After Hitler annexed Austria in 1938, Bloch began to make prepa-

rations to leave Prague out of fear of an invasion.52 Bloch decided to

go to the United States and not the Soviet Union where he felt he

would not have the same intellectual freedom.53 He wrote to Max

Horkheimer asking him for a position at the institute and help in obtain-

ing a visa, but Horkheimer said he was unable to assist him.54

When World War II broke out, the French government interned

Benjamin.55After his release from the internment camp he returned to


7/36


Paris, where he wrote his Theses on the Philosophy of History.56

When Paris fell to Nazi troops in June 1940, Benjamin once again was

in ight. After crossing the Pyreenes by foot, he committed suicide in

Port Bau, Spain on September 27, 1940. Spanish customs oY

cials haddecided to send him back to France, which meant he would have been

handed over to the Gestapo.57

During the war, Ernst Bloch went to the United States where he

lived in New York and Cambridge.58 While in the United States, Bloch

tried to become a U.S. citizen. While Karola obtained citizenship, despite

an active roll in the Communist Party of the United States, Bloch was

denied citizenship because he was suspected of being a communist

although he was neither active or a member.59 In the United States,

the Blochs faced economic diYculties. Ernst turned to the Institute for

Social Research for help, but the help that they were willing to oVer

was limited.60

After the war in 1948 at age 63, Bloch was oVered his rst position

as a Professor of Philosophy at the University in Leipzig in communist

East Germany.61 Bloch was forced into retirement after supporting the

Hungarian uprising in 1956.62 While visiting West Germany in 1961

while the Berlin Wall was erected, Bloch decided not to return to East

Germany.63 He went to Tbingen where he became a guest professor.

In the late 1960s, Bloch allied himself with Rudi Dutschke and the

German New Left.64

II. Dialectical Theories of Secularization

1. Philosophy of Language

Benjamins early philosophy of language, which contains a dialecti-

cal theory of secularization, went through a process of secularization.

It went from being a theological theory of allegory to a historical mate-

rialist portrayal of dialectical images. His early philosophy of language

is contained in On Language as Such and the Language of Man(1916), The Task of the Translator (1923), and The Origin of the GermanTragic Drama (1927).

Benjamin believed in an Ursprachea pure original divine language.65

When man was expelled from paradise, language also went through a

fall.66 The pure language became degraded; it became fragmented into

a multiplicity of impure languages.67 This led to linguistic confusion.68

Meanings ceased to be self-evident; they became multiple and anti-thetical.69 In this fragmentation of language arose the plan of the build-


8/36


ing of the Tower of Babble. Language became enslaved in babble.70

Whereas in the language of paradise, things only had one name, with

the multiplicity of languages, they have hundreds of names.71 The fall

of language from its pure form in paradise to a language of humansrepresents a process of secularization.

In these early essays on language, Benjamin developed his theory of

translation. This theory is based on the premise that all languages are

related to each other.72 Language develops from an imperfect language

into a more perfect one through translation.73 The development of lan-

guage through translation is moving in the direction of the word of

God. While all languages are related, it is not individual languages, but

all languages collectively that can approach the pure (reine) or true (wahre)language.74 The task of the translator is redemptive in emancipating

pure language from the broken language in which it is enslaved.75

In The Origin of the German Tragic Drama, Benjamin develops his the-ory of allegory. Allegory is at home in the Fall.76 Allegory signies

the true nature of a fallen worlda world which has been shattered

and of which nothing remains but fragments or ruins.77 Because alle-

gory arises in a fallen world, it produces Trauer(melancholy).78An alle-gory has multiple layers of meaning, which are contradictory and open

to interpretation. The allegorist gives meaning to the world but, at the

same time, an allegorical interpretation deprives the world of its coher-

ence. Considered in allegorical terms, then, the profane world is both

elevated and devalued.79 Allegory enchants and disenchants the pro-

fane world.

Benjamins theory of secularization in his early works on languagehas a two-way movement. The fall of language from paradise into alle-

gories, represent a process of secularization. The task of the translator

to the restore the pure language and for the allegorist to redeem lan-

guage are acts of reenchantment. Benjamins early philosophy of lan-

guage moves dialectically in two opposite directions: from sacred to

profane and from profane to sacred. While his early philosophy of lan-

guage contains a dialectical theory of secularization, this theory is theo-logical.

The Origin of the German Tragic Drama examines the historical contextin which the German Baroque drama arose. Baroque arose during peri-

ods of decadence.80 The Trauerspiel (Tragic Drama) views history as aprocess of unstoppable decline (Verfall).81 Benjamin uses Verfall, whichmeans decadence, decay, or decline, as a secularization of the theolog-

ical concept of the fall.The Trauerspielof the Reformation and Counter-Reformation was a


9/36


secularization of the mystery play of the Renaissance. The mystery play

viewed the entire course of world history as a process of redemption.

The Trauerspiel, on the other hand, is marked by inescapable doubt.82

Religious aspirations were denied a religious fulllment; instead, a sec-ular solution was imposed upon them. In the Trauerspielaccess to theother world (Jenseits) was denied.83 Hope in redemption resided in thisdestiny itself rather than in fulllment of a divine plan of salvation.84

In the Baroque Trauerspiel, hope in redemption was not given up; rather,it became secularized in this world.

During the early thirties, Benjamins philosophy of language took a

shift in a secular direction. He no longer believed that the origins of

language were theological but rather mimetic. Doctrine of the Similar

(1933) and On the Mimetic Faculty (1933) are a secularization of

Benjamins theological philosophy of language: In them the transla-

tion of the early thought from a theological into an anthropological lan-

guage completes itself.85

The origins of language are a result of imitative behavior (mimicry),

which is connected with the magic of primitive religious ritual. Due to

the process of secularization, this magic is no longer observable in the

modern world. The observable world of modern man contains only

minimal residues of the magical correspondences and analogies that

were familiar to ancient people. The question is whether we are con-

cerned with the decay of this faculty or with its transformation.86

Modern language contains residues of the mimetic origins of language.

The mimetic gift has over the course of the millennia wandered into

language and writing and in the process magic has been liquidated.Language is the highest level of mimetic behavior.87 Mimesis, which

was originally connected with magic, has becomes secularized in lan-

guage and in the process magic has gone through a process of decline.

In Problems of the Sociology of Language (1935), Benjamin returned

to the question of the origin of language. However, this time it is not

explained from a theological perspective but rather from a sociological

one. According to Pierre Missac, the essay replaces the idea of a phi-losophy of language with that of a sociology.88 In this essay, Benjamin

rejects the onomatopoetic origins of language and in its place proposes

that the origins of language are mimetic.89

These essays not only contain a theory of the secularization of lan-

guage, but also represent the secularization of Benjamins philosophy of

language. Language originated in the mimetic capacity of human being.

Mimetic behavior is connected with religious ritual. The loss of mimetic


10/36


capacity, over which Benjamin laments, represents a secularization of

human experience. Like Benjamins earlier essays on language, he is

concerned with the origin of language. However, the origin of language

is no longer theological but anthropological and sociological.Benjamins theory of allegory became further secularized in his writ-

ings on Baudelaire: The Paris of the Second Empire of Baudelaire

(1938), Central Park (1939), and The Arcades Project (19271940). Inthese essays, Benjamin considered himself a historical materialist.

Baudelaire, for Benjamin, was an allegorist.90 Baroque emblems of

the 17th century return in a more developed form as commodities of

the 19th century.91 Baudelaire is Benjamins allegorist of 19th century

commodity society. The commodity has taken the place of the alle-

gorical way of seeing.92

In Benjamins early writings, his interest was in allegorical images.

In his later writings, he made increasing use of dialectical images.

Allegorical images are related to dialectical images but distinctly diVerent.

Both allegorical images and dialectical images have contradictory mean-

ings. However, allegorical images are melancholic whereas dialectical

images are revolutionary.93 The dialectical image is one ashing up

momentarily. It is thus, as an image ashing up in the nowof its recog-nisability, that the past, in this case that of Baudelaire, can be cap-

tured.94 Through remembrance, this image of the past ashes up in

the present. The task of the historical materialist is to be able to hold

on to the memory of the dialectical image. By doing so, the past can

be redeemed.

The Arcade, theneur, and the prostitute are dialectical images. Thearcades were glass-covered, marble-paneled passageways through entire

complexes of houses.95 They were built above the streets, which had

the most fashionable shops. In this world, theneurwas at home. Thearcades were simultaneously a street and an interior; they created a

dialectic of interior and exterior. The image of the neur was illumi-nated by gaslight which casted a surrealistic light on the ground.96 Like

the stranger, the neurwanders through the city losing himself in thecrowds.97 The goal for theneur is the market.98 Theneuris a dialec-tical image in wanting to see and be seen.

The intoxication caused by commodity fetishism is similar to the rush

of drugs. The intoxication to which theneursurrenders is the intox-ication of the commodity around which surges the stream of customers.99

The commodity causes a state of religious intoxication.100 In an essay

Capitalism as Religion, rejecting Webers Protestant ethic thesis,


11/36


Benjamin argued that the development of capitalism is not caused by

religion but that capitalism is a religious phenomenon.101 In the religion

of capitalism, it is the commodity that is worshipped.

The prostitute, like the neur, is a dialectical image. The prostituteis dialectical since she is not only a laborer but also a commodity. Thewhore has inherited all the powers of baroque allegory.102 The alle-

gory becomes secularized into the dialectical image in the form of a

whore. The deceptive transguration of the world of the commodity

resists its distortion in the allegorical. The commodity attempts to look

itself in the face. It celebrates its becoming human in the whore.103As

a commodity, the whore takes on an allegorical meaning. The prosti-

tute is an allegorical representative of all of us, who must sell our labor

powers on the market in commodity society in order to survive.

The neur, as a historical type, disappeared along with the arcadeand the gaslight. The replacement of the gaslight by the electrical light

came as a shock.104 With the decline of the arcades, theneur strolledthrough the aisles of the department store, which had replaced it.105 In

the postmodern era, the arcade has been resurrected and coexists with

the department store in the form of the shopping mall.

In his work on Baudelaire, Benjamins theory of allegory takes a turn

in a Marxist direction. Allegories of 19th century commodity society

(the Arcade, the neur and the prostitute) return as dialectical imagesof 20th century modernity. They are images of the past which expose

the contradictions of the present. The theory of allegory which was cen-

tral to the Trauerspiel became secularized into dialectical images. The

idea of redemption is not given but secularized in this world.

2. Theory of Experience

Benjamins early theory of experience, which was concerned with

metaphysical questions, went through a process of secularization and

became a dialectical theory of secularization. Benjamin was perplexed

with the problem of how metaphysical experience is possible. In anearly essay On the Program of the Coming Philosophy, (1918) Benjamin

attempted to develop a metaphysical concept of experience out of Kants

empirical theory of experience.106

In his later essays on experience, Benjamins orientation shifted to a

social psychological perspective. Borrowing from Freud and Proust,

Benjamin distinguished between voluntary and involuntary memory.

Voluntary memory is memory that we are able to recall at will.107

Involuntary memory, which is composed of isolated visual images, is


12/36


unconscious memory that involuntarily ashes back before us.108 Out of

this, Benjamin develops a third type of memory: that of remembrance

(Eingedenken). It tries to make the past present through actualization

(Vergegenwrtigung).109

It is through remembrance that one is able to seizehold of the dialectical image.

Benjamin incorporated the Freudian explanation of the eVect of shock

into his later theory of experience. One of the functions of conscious-

ness is protection against shock.110 The greater the shock, the more the

conscious attempts to screen it out and therefore, the less the experi-

ence. The decline in the capacity to experience is a result of the con-

sciousness protecting itself against the ever-increasing shock of modern

society.111

In Benjamin, individual shock becomes collective.112 The individual

in the crowd of the city and workers in the assembly line of a factory

experience shock.113 Mass communication like lm and photography

causes shock. The shock of urbanization, industrialization, and mass

media lead to a decline in experience.

Benjamins theories of the decline of experience and the lost art of

storytelling are dialectical theories of secularization. There is a decline

in experience, argues Benjamin in Experience and Poverty (1933) and

the Storyteller (1936), which is a result of the shock of World War

I. With the [First] World War a process began to become apparent

which has not halted since then. Was it not noticeable at the end of

the war that men returned from the battleeld grown silentnot richer,

but poorer in communicable experience.114 Human beings who are in

shock are unable to communicate their experiences. Rather than seek-ing new experiences, they seek to free themselves from their previous

experiences.115

Benjamin laments that, along with experience, the art of storytelling

has been lost. The stories of the storyteller are based on his own expe-

rience or the experience of others.116 He turns these tales into the expe-

rience of those who are listening.117 The storyteller piles thin transparent

layers of his narrative one on top of the other.118

He is able to moveup and down the rungs of the ladder of experience.119 The storyteller

is able to make the profane experience of the individual into a sacred

experience of the collective.

The story was born out of the boredom of the preindustrial era.120

In modern society, people are no longer bored. Rather, they live in a

perpetual state of shock. The gift of listening is lost and along with it

those willing to listen. As a result, the art of storytelling has becomelost. The loss of the art of storytelling is accompanied by the decline


13/36


in the communicability of experience.121 Storytelling, which is based on

experience, has been replaced by communication in the form of infor-

mation.122 The loss of storytelling is due to the secular productive forces

of history.123

The storyteller is a secularized form of the chronicler. The chroni-

cler, who is the precursor of the historian, is the history-teller.124 The

chronicler and the storyteller are both present in the works of Nikolai

Leskov:

Both the chronicler with his eschatological orientation and the storyteller

with his profane outlook are so represented in his works that in a num-

ber of stories it can hardly be decided whether the web in which theyappear is the olden fabric of a religious view of the course of things, or

the multicolored fabric of a worldly view.125

The outlook of the chronicler is eschatological while that of the story-

teller is profane. The web in which they appear is that which connects

the religious (the sacred) with the worldly (the profane). The sacred and

profane are interconnected.

In his essay on Surrealism, Benjamin advocates a type of experi-ence, which he calls profane illumination: But the true, creative over-

coming of religious illumination certainly does not lie in narcotics. It

resides in a profane illumination, a materialistic, anthropological inspira-tion, to which hashish, opium, or whatever else can give an introduc-

tory lesson. (But a dangerous one; and the religious lesson is stricter.)126

Profane illumination, which is a secularized form of religious illumina-

tion, replaces it. While hashish can provide an introductory lesson toprofane illumination, profane illumination is more illuminating than the

intoxication of hashish.127

There is a decline in modern society in the capacity of humans to

have a meaningful experience or communicate it through storytelling.128

Not only is there a fall in experience, but there is a redemptive hope

by Benjamin that human beings will be able to regain the capacity to

have meaningful experience. However, this meaningful experience is no

longer religious but profane. The loss of the capacity to experience rep-

resents a disenchantment of the world; it is a result of the process of

secularization. Benjamins hope that human beings will be able to regain

the capacity to experience hints at a desire for reenchantment. Ben-

jamins theory of experience is a dialectical theory of secularization; it

moves simultaneously in two opposite directionsfrom the sacred to

the profane and from the profane to the sacred.


14/36


3. Theory of Dreams

Both Benjamin and Bloch had theories of dreams. Bloch, who took

part in Benjamins hashish experiments, incorporated the intoxication of

hashish into his theory of dreams. Hash is associated with the not yetconscious of daydreams whereas opium is associated with night-dreams

and the no longer conscious.129 The eVect of opium is to produce the

night-dream while hashish causes the freewheeling, rapturous day-dream.130 While the night dream is oriented toward the past, the day-

dream is oriented toward the future. Blochs Principle of Hope is

connected with the not-yet conscious of the daydream; like Messianism

and Marxism it moves in a utopian direction.Walter Benjamins theory of dreams is a dialectical theory of secu-

larization. Benjamins interest in dreams was awakened by his discov-

ery of Surrealism in 1926. Like the Surrealists, Benjamin in his theory

of dreams mixed Freudianism with Marxism.131 Benjamins theory of

dreams is a result of a synthesis of the theories of Freud and Jung with

those of Marx. Freud argued that dreams are a product of the uncon-

scious while Jung argued that there is a collective unconscious. Benjamintook this a step further. He reasons that if dreams are the product of

the unconscious and if there is a collective unconscious, there must

also be collective dreaming and therefore a collective awakening.132

His source of authority is Marx who wrote: the reformation of con-

sciousness lies solely in the awakening of the world . . . from its dreamsabout itself.133 Human beings, by becoming conscious of their own

dreams, have the possibility of realizing them.134 Like the individual con-

sciousness, the collective consciousness alternates between dreaming and

awakening. The collective nds its expression in the dream and their

meaning in awakening.135

In Benjamin, there is a dialectic of dreaming and awakening. The

relationship of the past to the present is that of dreaming to awakening.136

The dialectical method of history experiences the present as a woken

world. One passes through the past in the memory of the dream!137

The past comes into view only at a specic time: the epoch in which

humanity, rubbing its eyes, suddenly recognizes the dream image as

such.138 This moment, in which society recognizes that it has been

dreaming, is the moment of awakening. The Now of recognizability

(Jetzt der Erkennbarkeit) is the moment of awakening.139 The dialecticalimage, because it is a image of the past, is a dream image.140 It is seized

through remembrance and realized in awakening. Awakening is the

dialectical, Copernican turn of remembrance.141 The goal of a dreaming


15/36

society is collective awakening. Every epoch not only dreams the next,

but also in dreaming, strives toward the moment of awakening.142

Benjamin believed that commodity society is living in a dream state

and that society must collective wake up from this dream. The collec-tive awakening has its parallel in both the redemption of Messianism

and the revolution of Marxism. Collective dreaming is an act of enchant-

ment while the idea of collective awakening is an act of disenchant-

ment. Benjamins theory of dreaming and awakening is a dialectical

theory of enchantment and disenchantment.

4. Aesthetic TheoryBenjamins aesthetic theory went through a process of secularization

and became a dialectical theory of secularization. Benjamins early aes-

thetic theory on the poetry of the Romantics (Hlderlin, Schlegel, and

Goethe) attempted to bridge the material and spiritual realms. Paradox-

ically, while Benjamin saw romanticism as a secularization of the mys-

tical tradition, Messianism lies at its center.143 After 1924, Benjamins

aesthetic theory went through a process of secularization shifting from

Romanticism to Marxism. His later Marxist aesthetic theory, which was

on theater, photography, and lm, examined the sacred from the per-

spective of the profane. He developed a dialectical theory of secular-

ization, which was concerned with the origin of theater and art in

religious ritual.

What is Epic Theater? (1931) is about Bertolt Brechts popular

revolutionary theater. Epic Theater creates a VerfremdungsaVekt (eVect ofalienation), which takes places through the process of interruption.144

Interruption dispels the illusion of theater, which is imposed on the

audience.145 Epic theater is a gestic theater.146 Gestures, which result

from interruption, are performed by the actor who is able to step out

of character.147 Epic Theater, through its use of gestures, portrays the

cessation of happenings. The conditions which the epic theatre reveals

is the dialectic at a standstill.148

Epic Theater is a secularization of traditional theater. In traditional

theater, the audience is separated from the actors by the abyss of the

stage. The abyss which separates the players from the audience as it

does the dead from the living; the abyss whose silence in a play height-

ens the intoxicationthis abyss, of all elements of the theater the one

that bears the most indelible trace of its ritual origin, has steadily

decreased in signicance.149 The abyss of the stage, which has its ori-

gin in ritual, is the cause of traditional theaters intoxicating eVect. In



16/36


the epic theater, this separation no longer occurs. As a result, theater

has lost its sacred function.150 The secularization of theater sobers the

audience from the religious intoxication of traditional theater.151 While

epic theater is a secularization of traditional forms of theater, in it thedialectic comes to a standstill, which is an act of reenchantment.

Benjamins theory of the decline of aura is a dialectical theory of

secularization. He rst developed his concept of aura in A Small History

of Photography (1931) and more fully developed his argument of its

decline in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

(1935).

Benjamin denes aura as a strange weave of space and time: the

unique appearance or semblance of distance, no matter how close the

object may be.152Aura depends upon the presence of the original; it

is the original that has authority.153 The earliest works of art originated

in ritual. The auratic work of art is not separable from its ritualistic

function. The distance of aura gives art a cultic character.154 What is

distant is unapproachable which is a characteristic of the cultic image.

With the secularization of art, authenticity displaces the cult value of

the work.155Authenticity is a secularization of the cult value of a work

of art. The unique value of the authentic work of art has its basis

in ritual, the location of its original use value. This ritualistic basis,

however remote, is still recognizable as secularized ritual even in the

most profane forms of the cult of beauty.156 The cult of beauty is a

secularization of the ritualistic basis of art. The ritualistic basis of art

is recognizable as secularized ritual in its profane form. The sacred is

recognizable in the profane.The aura of the work of art withers away in the age of mechanical

reproduction.157 Mechanically reproduced art lacks an aura. The most

perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its pres-

ence in time and space.158 It does not have a unique existence. The

reason for the decline of aura is the desire of the masses to bring things

spatially closer.159 In order to bring a thing closer, it must be repro-

duced. Reproduction is the overcoming of what is unique by duplicat-ing it; it makes art available to the masses. The sameness of things,

which is brought about by technical reproduction, results in a destruc-

tion of the aura. Mechanical reproduction liberates the work of art from

its connection to cultic ritual.160

Mechanical reproduction has developed from stamping, to printing,

to lithography, to photography, and to lm. The photograph is a techno-

logical advancement over the painting.161 Early photographs had an

aura.162 After 1880, photographers began to use the art of retouching


17/36


which led to a decline of aura. Aura was banished from the picture.163

In lm, the person does not have an aura. Aura is dependent upon the

presence of the actor. As a result, the aura of the actor disappears and

with it the aura of the character he portrays.164

Theater and art have their origin in ritual. The loss of aura, which

is a result of the mechanical reproduction of art, represents a loss of

its religious, ritualistic, or cultic authority.165As the mechanical means

of reproduction developed from photography to lm, aura withered

away. The loss of aura is part of a process of secularization; it is dialec-

tical because Benjamin sees it as liberating but mourns at its loss.

5. From Messianism to Marxism

A. Messianic MarxismBloch rst juxtaposed Messianism with Marxism in the Spirit of Utopia

which was written during World War I. Blochs most explicit mixture

of Messianism and Marxism is contained in the section Karl Marx,

Death, and the Apocalypse. In it, Bloch argues against an atheistic

Marxism.

And nally it is in these days, where it has already become suYciently

dark, where the desperate twilight of God stands in all things, and nei-

ther Atlas nor Christ carry their heaven, of no particular philosophical

merit, when Marxism consequently remains atheistic, in order to give the

human soul nothing other than a more or less eudmonistically furnished

heaven on earth without the music, that would have resounded from

this eVortless functioning economic and social mechanism.166

An atheistic Marxism is like heaven on earth without music; it lacks a

utopian spirit. Unlike his later work, where he does take the position

of atheism, Bloch in Spirit of Utopiaargues that Marxism must becometheological.

Blochs mixture of Messianism and Marxism continue in his early

workThomas Mnzer, Theologe der Revolution (1921). In it, he discusses how

Mnzers political revolution was guided by theological concepts. Blochsees Marxism and theology as having the same goals. Marxism and

the dream of the unconditional thus nally unite themselves in the same

course and plan of operations.167

B. Moses and the ProphetsWhereas in his early work Bloch mixes Messianism and Marxism, in

his later writings, Bloch develops a dialectical theory of secularization

of Judeo-Christian Messianism into Marxism, which is based on a con-

tradiction between the belief in God and mans belief in himself.


18/36


In the Principle of HopeandAtheism and Christianity, Bloch has a Marxistsociology of religion. His approach is to read the Bible with the eyes

of the Communist Manifesto.168 In Blochs history of Messianism, there

is a dialectical process of secularization that takes place from the Kingdomof God to the Kingdom of Man.169

The origins of Messianism are found in the exodus religion of Moses.

The idea of the Messiah is based on Moses. In his revolt against the

Egyptians, Moses had a spirit of rebellion. The spirit of rebellion is a

messianic idea.170

Blochs interpretation of Job goes against the grain. Job, who was

the most bitter of men has been made out to be the most patient.171

This is the same man who called Yahweh a murderer.172Job repre-

sents a loss of faith in God and an increasing faith in man. The basis

of hope is Jobs own conscience with its rebellious desire for revenge.173

Jobs messianic teachings are focused on man.174 With Job, a shift in

the direction of secularization takes place from a belief in God to a

belief in man.

Job hoped in a messianic blood-avenger.175 Bloch uses the transla-

tion avenger of blood instead of redeemer.176Job said: I know that

my blood-avenger is living and will at the end rise up above my dust.

( Job 19, 2527)177Jobs messianic beliefs are a result of the loss of faith

in God. Job accuses God of doing nothing to stop evil. This creates the

need for theodicy.178 The solution to this is that God does not exist. The

Book of Job, according to Bloch, leads to the conclusion of atheism.179

The belief in the Son of Man represents a loss of faith in God and

an increasing faith in man. In the Book of Daniel, Messianism took ona human form in the Son of Man.180 And behold, with the clouds of

heaven there came one like a Son of Man, and he came to the Ancient

of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given domin-

ion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages

should serve him (Dan. 7, 13f.).181 The idea of the Son of Man is

humanistic; it implies that humanity is the source of salvation.182 A

theological transformation took place. Trust in God alone was given upand was instead placed in the Son of Man.183 The development of the

belief in the Son of Man represents a move away from the belief in

God; it was a dialectical secularization of faith into man.

The title Son of Man is diVerent from the dynastic title, Son of

God, which has a history that extends from the oVspring of Zeus to

Alexander. Son of Man belongs exclusively to the Jewish tradition.184

Although both concepts are theological, the Son of Man represents a

movement in a secular direction away from the belief in God to the

belief in man. The tension between the Son of God and the Son of


19/36


Man, which is based on a contradiction between mans faith in God

and mans faith in himself, is that between the sacred and the profane.

Although the Son of Man is a move away from the belief in God, in

it the contradictions between the belief in God and the belief in manhave not been resolved. The Son of Man is a dialectical secularization

of the Son of God.

C. JesusThe idea of the Messiah, which is based on Moses and was proph-

esized as the Son of Man, became embodied in Jesus. Jesus lived dur-

ing a time of prophecy and expectations. The Jewish people waited for

a king from the House of David who was capable of driving out the

Roman occupiers.185 Because of its suVering, Israel was chosen for a

future reward. Israel was associated with the idea of a suVering Messiah-

the son of Joseph who should not to be confused with the victorious

Messianic Son of David.186

The belief in Jesus as the Davidic Messiah led the way to his recep-

tion as Son of Man.187 The Son of Man was not a title used by Jesus

disciples. It is Jesus name for himself.188 If Jesus presented himself as

the Son of God, he did so as the Son of Man.189

Blochs interpretation of Jesus runs counter to that of the Churchs.

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus was full of anger. He overthrew the

tables of the money-lenders in the Temple. He showed no love for his

enemies and was only patient of his followers. Bloch nds quotations

made by Jesus which cast him not as a pacist but as a militant: I

have not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10. 34) I cameto cast re upon the earth. . . . (Lk. 12. 49)190

Bloch analyzes Jesus teaching from a Marxist perspective. Jesus rejec-

tion of the coin of tribute teaches not acquiescence in the world, as

St. Paul argues, but contempt.191 Render therefore to Caesar the

thing that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods. (Matt.

22. 21)192 This contempt for money is a rejection of the power of Caesar

and material wealth. At the top of Jesus list of enemies are the ene-mies of those who labor and are heavy laden. Jesus said that it is

more diYcult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than it

is . . . for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.193

Jesus teaching are this worldly not otherworldly. Jesus never said,

The kingdom of God is in you. This is a mistranslation. The proper

translation of this phrase is: The kingdom of God is in the midst of

you.194 The kingdom of God is not spiritual but this worldly. Jesus

never conceived his mission in watered-down, unworldly terms.195 The


20/36


Son of Man does not stay in the other world. After his crucixion and

resurrection, he descends to this world.196

Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah in a traditional sense. If he

did, the Jewish priest class would not have denounced him to theRomans.197 Common interests developed between the Jewish upper class

and the Romans against Jesus and his eschatological radicalism.198

The claim to be the Messiah was not a capital oVense. However, in

the case of Jesus, Leviticus (24. 16) was interpreted to mean that the

Son of God was the blasphemer of God and therefore had to die.

( John 19. 7)199 Jesus took on the title King of the Jews. Under this

title, he was crucied. Crucixion was the Roman punishment for rebel-

lion.200 According to Paul Jesus was not the Messiah in spite of the

Cross, but because of it. (Is. 53. 212)201

D. FeuerbachLudwig Feuerbach paved the way for the dialectical secularization of

Judeo-Christian Messianism into Marxism. Feuerbach is a turning point

in the philosophy of religion. Beginning with him, the nal history of

Christianity begins.202

Feuerbach was an Enlightenment thinker. He wanted men to be

students of the Here-and-now rather than candidates for the Beyond.203

Long before the Enlightenment overthrew God, Christianity placed the

Son of Man on the same level with God in Heaven.204 Feuerbach did

not want to be a gravedigger of traditional religion which was easy

to do a hundred years after the Enlightenment.205 He was aware of the

problem that religious residues remain even if they are demystied.Feuerbach was an atheist. His atheism attempted to destroy the illu-

sion of religion. It fanned the ames which transformed the theologi-

cally created innity of man back into a human one.206 God is a

negation of man. Feuerbach negates God in order to aYrm man.207

Man is not created by God; God is created by man.208

Religion, according to Feuerbach, is based on alienation. According

to this theory, man is divided against himself. At one moment he isa limited individual and at the next he is unlimited and divinized, set

over and against himself as an alienated Self, as God.209 God is noth-

ing other than a projection of the alienated self.

Feuerbachs theory of religion is an anthropologization of religion.210

Like Feuerbach, Bloch engages in a new anthropology of religion.

Humanity not God is the chief protagonist in the nal apocalyptic

drama.211 The roots of religion lie in illusion. The mystery of religion

is the mystery of the essence of man.212 Feuerbach demysties heaven


21/36


so he can make man important. Feuerbach expropriated ideas from

the other world; he wanted to give man what is mans.213 Feuerbach

brought the content of religion from heaven back to man.214

Feuerbach takes the dialectical process of secularization a step fur-ther. His anthropologization of religion replaces the belief of God with

a belief in man. However, the concept of man remains abstract.

E. MarxThe history of the development of Judeo-Christian Messianism culmi-

nates in Marxism. Messianism and Marxism share a history of heresy.

Marx took up the scourge with which Jesus chased the money-lenders

out of the temple.215 Marx is guided simultaneously by Jesus with a

whip and the Jesus of brotherly love.216

Marx, like Feuerbach, dialectically secularizes Judeo-Christian Messian-

ism. Under the inuence of Feuerbach, Marx wrote: To be radical

is to grasp things at their roots. But the root of all things is man.217

The critique of religion for Marx is an act of enlightenment.218 Marxs

analysis of alienation and critique of commodities began with his cri-

tique of religion. It began with Hegels statement about the treasures

squandered on heaven and the anthropological insights of Feuer-

bach. With Marx, the anthropological and religious critique of God

came down from heaven to earth. Marx warned about the illusions

of ideology and the fetishistic character of commodities. Marx takes

the dialectical process of secularization a step further. Unlike Feuer-

bach, Marx was not satised with overcoming alienation with an abstract

idea of man. The victims of capitalism, the laborers and the heavy-laden, are the most alienated.219 It is their alienation, Marx wants to

overcome. Rather than aYrming an abstract idea of man like Feuer-

bach, in Marx faith becomes embodied in the concrete form of the

proletariat.

According to Bloch, Marxs position that religion is the opiate of

the masses is misunderstood. Blochs reinterprets Marxs position toward

religion. Marx sees religion as a protest against real suVering. ReligionoVers comfort but brings only illusory happiness since it allows the con-

ditions which cause suVering to remain. The critique and dissolution of

religion oVers the possibility for true emancipation since it allows human

beings to confront the conditions which cause their own suVering.220

Bloch attacks those who use the argument that Marxism is a secu-

larized form of Judeo-Christian Messianism as a means to discredit

Marxism. He calls them secularizers and includes Karl Lwith among

them.221 The secularizers attempt to discredit Marx by accusing him of


22/36


imitating mythical originals. Marx is accused of being a church robber.

His secularization of Judeo-Christian Messianism into Marxism is feared

because it is seen as being tainted with the foul odor of revolution.

Humanity according to this view is nothing but the Son of Man tri-vialized, proletarian solidarity merely the kitsch edition of early Christian

love-communism, the realm of freedom merely the kingdom of the chil-

dren of Godat the level of godless pseudo-enlightenment.222 Karl

Lwith is a secularizer in his equation of theological concepts with

their secular counterparts. For Lwith exploitation is prehistory or, in

biblical terms, the original sin of this aeon. Historical materialism is

a history of salvation in the language of national economics. Communist

religion is a pseudo-morphosis of Judaeo-Christian messianism.223

Secularization has a negative connotation because it has been applied

in a reactionary manner to Marx.224 Marx is regarded as part of the

pavement. This is because Marx set the Hegelian dialectic, which was

standing on its head, on-its-feet. What is set on its feet has then so to

speak only come down from the nag to the ass, and then to the ple-

beian pedestrian. Or it was even irreverently brought down from a

sacred space and made worldly. When it appears historically, this is

also called secularizing, though then in a less pejorative sense.225 Blochargues for a new Marxist conception of secularization. Blochs concep-

tion of secularization is dialectical as opposed to the shallow theory of

secularization of the secularizers. Using the term secularization in a shal-

low sense, Bloch argues that A good substance is in fact not weak-

ened when it is corrected, and even more obviously it is not secularized

when, once set on its feet, it is realized.226 The implementation ofMarxist ideas is not a secularization of the heights unless seculariza-

tion is understood in a new Marxist sense.227 Secularization, in this

Marxist dialectical sense, places hope for the rst time on human feet.228

Dialectical materialism has taken hold of the living soul of a dead

religion. This is what remains when the opium, the fools paradise of

the Other-world, has been burnt away to ashes. Dialectical material-

ism signals the way to a fullled This-world of a new earth.229

Religion and Marxism, according to Bloch, share a common element

of hope.230 Where there is hope, there is also religion.231 The end of

religion is not no religion but in Marxismthe inheriting of it.

Blochs theory contains a secularized, worldly, masterless . . . original

biblical hope.232

Despite Blochs interest in religion, he argues for the position of athe-

ism. The most powerful paradox in religion is the elimination of God.233

Every anthropologization of heaven from Prometheus to the belief in


23/36


the Messiah indicates that the Kingdom can remain without God.234

The Kingdom of God can exist without God in the form of the Kingdom

of Man.235 Paradoxically Bloch argues: Without atheism messianism

has no place.236

Atheism enables the realization of Messianism. Onlywhen man has given up belief in God, can he truly have faith in him-

self. Messianism is a movement away from the belief in God; it places

faith in man. The culmination of this is atheism. Only an Atheist can

be a good Christ, certainly but also; only a Christ be can a good Atheist;

how could himself the Son of Man otherwise have been called equal

to God.237 Dialectically Bloch believes that the only way secularization

can take place is for the utopian goals of religion to be realized.

Bloch, argues Peter Zudeick, in his confession to Marxism stands

out in the tradition of Jewish Messianism.238 Bloch believes in an end

goal of society. His eschatology, rather than waiting for the action of

God, is actively driven from humans.239

Bloch believes that Marxism is a secularization of Judeo-Christian

Messianism. However, unlike the secularizers, he does not see it as some-

thing negative but rather as a form of self-correction. Messianism and

Marxism share a history of heresy. Marxism is a dialectical secular-

ization of Judeo-Christian Messianism, which saves the radical content

of Messianism while attempting to discard its mystical shell.240

III. Montage: Messianism and Marxism

Benjamin, in his shift from Romanticism to Marxism, did not become

completely secularized. Rather, his later writings mix both theological

and materialist elements. Richard Wolin makes the claim that there are

some works where Benjamin achieved an eVective fusion between his

theological and materialist interests: the essays on Proust, Kraus, Kafka,

and Leskov.241 Susan Buck-Morss is more accurate in her observation:

instead of really integrating the two poles of theology and Marxism,

Benjamins writings tended to present them side by sidesometimes not

in the same essay, but in essays upon which he worked simultaneously,

each of which, as a self contained work, appeared to stand clearly in one

camp or the other. Benjamin was aware of this duality, and often referred

to the Janus-face of his theory.242

Of the four essays which Wolin mentions, the only one which comes

close to an explicit mixture of Messianism and Marxism is the essay on

Karl Kraus. In the others, the mixture remains under the surface. They

either lean either more in a Messianic direction or a Marxist one.


24/36

Among Benjamins Weimar writings, the Kraus essay, observes Berndt

Witte is the most radical attempt at a synthesis between early theo-

logical and materialist thinking.243 In it, Benjamin mixes theological

motifs with a Marxist critique of journalism. For Kraus the terribleyears of his life are not history, but nature, a river condemned to mean-

der through a landscape of hell. It is a landscape in which every day

fty thousand tree trunks are felled for sixty newspapers.244 Hell is cre-

ated on earth in a secularized form through the destruction of nature

for the purpose of making a prot. Describing the methodology of this

essay, Benjamin sees himself as a materialist who has never been able

to do research and think in other than a theological sense.245 Gershom

Scholem gave Benjamin harsh criticism in response to this essay accus-

ing him of self-deception.246After this, Benjamin did not engage in the

same type of explicit mixture of Messianism and Marxism until the late

1930s. Although the earlier essays (in the late 1920s and early 1930s)

did to some degree attempt to integrate both Messianism and Marx-

ism, the mixture remains under the surface. It was the negative reac-

tions by Scholem, Adorno, and Brecht to Benjamins Marxism (Scholem

and Adorno), his Messianism (Brecht) or his combination of the two

(Scholem and Brecht), that is most likely responsible for Benjamin sup-

pressing the montage of Messianism and Marxism.247 Neither one of

the three, Scholem, Brecht, and Adorno, appreciated the inuence of

the other upon Benjamin.248 It was as if Benjamin was caught in the

jaws of a crocodile and was being pulled from three diVerent oppo-

site directions: Jerusalem, Denmark, and New York.249 It was not until

the Theses, when shortly before his suicide, it did not matter what theothers thought.

In Eduard Fuchs, Collector and Historian (1937), the Arcades

Project (19271940), and On the Concept of History (1940) otherwise

known as The Theses on the Philosophy of History (GeschichtsphilosophischenThesen), Benjamin develops a conception of history which is both Messianicand Marxist. In the Theses, written at the outbreak of World War II

shortly before Benjamins suicide, one nds the most explicit mixtureof Messianism and Marxism.

Benjamins mixture of Messianism and Marxism is achieved through

the use of montage. The method of theArcades Projectreveals Benjaminis literary montage.250 In the procedure of montage: the superim-

posed elements disrupts the context in which it is inserted.251 Benjamins

montage is composed of quotations, which like montage result in inter-

ruption. To quote a text involves the interruption of its context.252

Through the use of quotations, Benjamin juxtaposes one allegorical and



25/36

dialectical image against the next. Messianic and Marxist dialectical and

allegorical images are juxtaposed in montage.

Benjamin begins the Theses with an allegory which reveals the rela-

tionship between historical materialism and theology. Historical materi-alism (the puppet) plays a dialectical game of chess against the automaton.

Its hands are guided by theology (the little hunchback). Historical mate-

rialism is a puppet; it is theology that pulls the strings. Historical mate-

rialism must take theology into its service in order to win.253 Benjamins

historical materialism is soaked with theology.254 Like the little hunch-

back, theology remains hidden.

The historical materialist has a messianic conception of history.

The past carries a secret index with it by which it is referred to redemp-

tion. Does not a gust of wind strike us that has been around those who

have lived earlier? Is there not in the voices to which we lend our ears,

an echo from those who have been silenced? Do not the women, who we

court, have sisters, they no longer know? If this is so, then there exists a

secret agreement between past generations and ours. Then we are awaited

for upon this earth. Then is given to us, like every generation before us,

a weak messianic power, upon which the past has a demand. It is cheapnot to fulll this demand. The historical materialist knows why.255

The historical materialist has a messianic conception of time.256 He rec-

ognizes in the monadic structure of history a messianic cessation of

happenings.257 The historical materialist rejects a conception of history

as progress based on homogenous and empty time and instead attempts

to realize a Now Time.258 He attempts to seize hold of the dialecti-

cal images of the past through remembrance and bring them into thepresent through actualization. Like for the historical materialist, for the

Jews history is not homogeneous and empty time. For them, every

second is the gate through which the Messiah may enter.259

Conclusion

The purpose of Benjamin and Blochs montage of Messianism andMarxism is to juxtapose these two opposed but interrelated philosophies

of history. In doing so they reveal that Marxism is a dialectical secu-

larization of Judeo-Christian Messianism. As a result, traditional uni-

linear theories of secularization are placed into question.

The mixture of Messianism and Marxism is not a rejection of the

process of secularization but a diVerent understanding of it. The tradi-

tional theory of secularization is a unilinear theory of progress, one

based on a homogenous and empty conception of time which moves



26/36


in a one-way direction from the sacred to the profane. The dialectical

theory of secularization has a dialectical development which is driven

by the contradiction between the sacred and the profane. Rather than

using the theory of secularization to discredit Marxism, Benjamin andBloch used it to reveal the relationship between Messianism and Marxism-

between the sacred and the profane.

Benjamins dialectical theories of secularization contain a two-way move-

mentfrom sacred to profane and from profane to sacred. Benjamins

dialectical theory of secularization moves in a secular direction and dou-

bles back on itself in the direction of the sacred. Blochs dialectical the-

ory of secularization, on the other hand, is based on the contradiction

between faith in God and faith in man. Both Benjamin and Bloch hoped

in a resolution of this conict. In Bloch, the dialectical secularization

of Messianism is realized in the atheism of Marxism. Benjamin hoped

in a Now Time, which is both Messianic and Marxist.

Rather than viewing reality from either a Messianic or Marxist per-

spective, Benjamin and Bloch simultaneously viewed it from both. Peter

Berger describes this as alternation: the possibility that an individ-

ual may alternate back and forth between logically contradictory mean-

ing systems.260 Benjamin and Bloch alternate between Messianism and

Marxism because these contradictory meaning systems are intercon-

nected. They were able to see the continuum of the process of secu-

larization that runs from the sacred to the profane. From the present

looking into the past, it runs from profane to sacred. If Marxism is a

secularization of Judeo-Christian Messianism, then because the Messiah

or the revolution that were waited for have not yet come, the con-tradictions between the sacred and profane have not been resolved. The

relationship between Messianism and Marxism, between the sacred and

the profane remains contradictory. Benjamin and Blochs montage of

Messianism and Marxism resulted from a diVerent understanding of the

process of secularizationnot a traditional unilinear one but a dialec-

tical one.

A Note on Translation

In this article, I have used existing published English translations of

the German original when they exist. Otherwise, I have done the trans-

lations from German to English myself. In some cases, I have slightly

modied the existing translations. When there are existing translations,

I have provided not only the citation of the English translation but of

the German original. When I give both the citations for the English


27/36

translation and the German original, I use the following abbreviations

for the German original texts:

Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften GS IVIIWalter Benjamin, Briefe BRErnst Bloch, Geist der Utopie, Zweite Fassung GU2Ernst Bloch,Das Prinzip HoVnung PHErnst Bloch,Atheismus im Chistentum AC

Notes

1. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity: the religion of the Exodus and the Kingdom, p. 240(translation modied); AC, p. 317.

2. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften I, p. 1231.3. Rolf Tiedemann, Historical Materialism or Political Messianism? An Interpretation

of the Theses On the Concept of History in The Philosophical Forum XV, nos. 12(fall/winter 19831984), pp. 90, 96 cited in Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing,p. 247; The German original of this essay is contained in Rolf Tiedmann, Dialectic imStillstand, Historischer Materialismus oder Politischer Messianismus?, pp. 99141. ATranslation of it is also contained in Gary Smith, ed.Benjamin Philosophy, Aesthetics, History,

pp. 175209.4. Stephen Eric Bronner, Reclaiming the Fragments: On the Messianic Materialism

of Walter Benjamin, in Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists, pp. 129, 137.5. Jrgen Habermas, Bewutmachende oder rettende Kritik- die Aktualitt Walter

Benjamins, in Siegfried Unseld, ed., Zur Aktualitt WalterBenjamins, (Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp Verlag, 1972), p. 207 cited in Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing,p. 248; A translation of this essay is also contained in Gary Smith, ed., On Walter Benjamin:Critical Essays and Reections, Walter Benjamin: Consciousness-Raising or Rescuing Critique,pp. 90128.

6. Richard Wolin,An Aesthetic of Redemption, p. 248.7. Jrgen Habermas, Bewutmachende oder Rettende Kritik- die Aktualitt Walter

Benjamins, translated in Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing, p. 238.8. Irving Wohlfarth, On Some Jewish Motifs in Benjamin in Andrew Benjamin,

The Problems of Modernity, p. 202.9. Michael Lwy, Redemption and Utopia, p. 201.

10. Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing, pp. 249, 252.11. Karl Lwith, Meaning in History, p. 42.12. Ibid., p. 44.13. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, pp. 1288; 1360; PH, pp. 1521, 1609.

14. Max Weber, Ancient Judiasm, p. 327; Gesammelte Aufstze zur Religionssoziologie III,p. 342.15. Theodor W. Adorno,Noten zur LiteraturIV, p. 113 cited in Josef Frnks, Surrealismus

als Erkenntnis, p. 194.16. Michael Lwy, Redemption and Utopia, pp. 2223.17. Walter Benjamin, Reections, p. 312; GS II, pp. 203204.18. Sigrid Wiegel,Body Image and Image Space, p. 143.19. Robert Wohl, The Generation of 1914.20. Michael Lwy, Jewish Messianism and Libertarian Utopia in Central Europe

(19001933), in New German Critique20 (Spring/Summer 1980), pp. 112113.

21. Anson Rabinbach, Between Enlightenment and Apocalypse Benjamin, Bloch andModern German Jewish Messianism, in New German Critique34 (Winter 1985), p. 80.



28/36


22. Ibid., p. 81.23. Ibid., p. 82.

24. Arno Mnster, Utopie, Messianismus und Apokalypse im Frhwerk von Ernst Bloch, p. 56.25. Arno Mnster, ed., Tagtrume vom aufrechten Gang. Sechs Interviews mit Ernst Bloch, pp.

101102.

26. Marianne Weber,Max Weber: A Biography, pp. 468469;Max Weber, Ein Lebensbild,p. 476.

27. Paul Honigsheim cited in Peter Zudeick,Der Hintern des Teufels, p. 45.28. Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 19101940, p. 76;BR, pp.

121122.29. Peter Zudeick,Der Hintern des Teufels, p. 39.30. Arno Mnster, Utopie, Messianismus und Apokalypse im Frhwerk von Ernst Bloch,

p. 102.31. Marrianne Weber, Max Weber: A Biography, p. 519; Max Weber, Ein Lebensbild,

p. 527.32. Arno Mnster, Utopie, Messianismus und Apokalypse im Frhwerk von Ernst Bloch, p. 99.33. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, p. 442; Gershom Scholem, The Story of a Friendship, p. 79; Die

Geschichte einer Freundschaft, pp. 101102.34. Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 19101940, (translation

modied); BR, p. 21.

35. Gershom Scholem, The Story of a Friendship, p. 122; Die Geschichte einer Freundschaft,p. 154; Bernt Witte, Walter Benjamin, p. 54; Witte, Walter Benjamin: An Intellectual Portrait,p. 73; Susan Buck-Morss, The Origins of Negative Dialectics, p. 21; Susan Buck-Morss, The

Dialectics of Seeing, p. 6.36. See Richard Wolin, Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption, p. 109.37. Werner Fuld, Walter Benjamin: Eine Biographie, p. 150; Walter Benjamin, The

Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, 19101940, p. 253; BR, p. 362.38. Gershom Scholem, The Story of a Friendship, p. 123; Die Geschichte einer Freundschaft,

p. 155.

39. Ernst Bloch, Recollections of Walter Benjamin in Gary Smith, ed., On WalterBenjamin, p. 339.

40. Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin, p. 299; BR, p. 424.41. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, p. 310.

42. Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin 19101940, p. 300; BR,p. 425.43. Asja Lacis, Revolutionr im Beruf, p. 45.44. Gershom Scholem, The Story of a Friendship, p. 123; Scholem, Die Geschichte einer

Freundschaft, p. 156; Walter Benjamin, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin 19101940,pp. 335, 343, 346347; BR, pp. 473, 483, 488.

45. Arno Mnster, Utopie, Messianismus, und Apokalypse im Frhwerk von Ernst Bloch,p. 223.

46. Peter Zudeick,Der Hintern des Teufels, p. 103; Ernst Bloch, Briefe, p. 410.47. Peter Zudeick,Der Hintern des Teufels, p. 127.

48. Ibid., p. 131.49. Ibid., p. 144.

50. Ernst Bloch, Recollections of Walter Benjamin in Gary Smith, ed., On WalterBenjamin, p. 135.

51. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, pp. 424, 436; Gershom Scholem, ed., Walter Benjamin-GershomScholem Briefwechsel, pp. 208209; Scholem, The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin and GershomScholem, pp. 170171.

52. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, p. 500.53. Karola Bloch, Die Sehnsucht des Menschen, ein wirklicher Mensch zu werden, p. 59.54. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, pp. 680, 682683.55. Hans Sahl, Walter Benjamin im Lager in Ingrid and Konrad Scheurmann, Fr

Walter Benjamin, pp. 114121.


29/36


56. Letter to Morgenroth (Stephan Lackner) on May 5, 1940 in Stephan Lackner,Von einer langen, schwierigen Irrfahrt: Aus unverVentlichten Briefen Walter Benjamins

in Neue Deutsche Hefte (No. 161/26. Jahrgang/Heft 1/1979), p. 66.57. Werner Fuld, Walter Benjamin: Eine Biographie, p. 286.58. Peter Zudeick,Der Hintern des Teufels, pp. 169, 171.59. Karola Bloch,Die Sehnsucht des Menschen, p. 61.60. Ernst Bloch, Briefe, pp. 443444.61. Ibid., p. 591.

62. Peter Zudeick,Der Hintern des Teufels, pp. 232233.63. Ibid., p. 255; Karola Bloch, Die Sehnsucht des Menschen, p. 71.64. Peter Zudeick,Der Hintern des Teufels, p. 323.65. Walter Benjamin, Reections, p. 326; GS II, p. 152.66. Irving Wohlfarth, On Some Jewish Motifs in Benjamin in Andrew Benjamin,

The Problems of Modernity, p. 157.

67. Walter Benjamin, Reections, p. 327; GS II, p. 152; and Richard Wolin, WalterBenjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption, p. 42.68. Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings, 19131926, p. 72; GS II, p. 154.69. Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing, p. 173; Richard Wolin, Walter Benjamin:

An Aesthetic of Redemption, p. 67.70. Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings, 19131926, p. 72 (translation modied); GS II,

p. 154.71. Ibid., p. 73; GS II, p. 155.72. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 72; GS IV, p. 12.73. Walter Benjamin, Reections, p. 325: GS II, p. 151.74. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, pp. 74, 77; GS IV, pp. 13, 16.75. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 80; GS IV, p. 19.76. Walter Benjamin, The Origin of the German Tragic Drama, p. 234; GS I, p. 407.77. Susan Buck-Morss, The Dialectics of Seeing, p. 69.78. Walter Benjamin, The Origin of the German Tragic Drama, p. 185; GS I, p. 361.79. Ibid., p. 175; GS I, p. 351.80. Ibid., p. 55; GS I, p. 235.81. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften I, p. 353.82. Walter Benjamin, The Origin of the German Tragic Drama, p. 78 (translation modied);

GS I, pp. 257258.83. Ibid., p. 78 (translation modied); GS I, p. 257.

84. Ibid., p. 81; GS I, p. 260.

85. Hans-Heinz Holz, Philosophie als Interpretation in Alternative 10/67, p. 239cited in Barbara Kleiner, Sprache und Entfremdung, p. 16.

86. Walter Benjamin, Reections, p. 334; GS II, p. 211.87. Ibid., p. 336; GS II, p. 213.88. Pierre Missac, Walter Benjamins Passages, p. 54.89. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften III, pp. 477478; Gnter Karl Pressler, Vom

mimetischen Usprung der Sprache, pp. 35, 38, 92.

90. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften I, p. 1091.91. Ibid., p. 681.

92. Walter Benjamin, Central Park inNew German Critique34, p. 52; GS I, 686.93. Max Pensky, Melancholy Dialectics: Walter Benjamin and the Play of Mourning, p. 211.94. Walter Benjamin, Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism, p. 49;

GS I, p. 682.95. Ibid., p. 36; GS I, p. 538.96. Ibid., p. 50; GS I, p. 552; Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project, p. 416; GS V,

p. 524.97. Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project, p. 427; GS V, p. 538.98. Ibid., p. 338; GS V, p. 427.


30/36


99. Walter Benjamin, Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism,p. 55; GS I, p. 558.

100. Ibid., p. 56; GS I, p. 559.101. Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings, 1913-1926, p. 288; GS VI, p. 100.102. Walter Benjamin, Central Park in New German Critique 34, p. 46; GS I,

p. 676.103. Ibid., p. 42 (translation modied); GS I, p. 671.104. Walter Benjamin, Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism, pp.

5051; GS I, p. 553.105. Ibid., p. 54; GS I, p. 557.106. Walter Benjamin, On the Program of the Coming Philosophy in Gary Smith,

ed.,Benjamin: Philosophy, Aesthetics, History, p. 3; GS II, 160.107. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 158; GS I, pp. 609610.108. Ibid., p. 214; GS II, p. 323.

109. Ibid., p. 211; GS II, p. 320.110. Ibid., p. 162; GS I, p. 614.111. Ibid., p. 163; GS I, p. 615.

112. Jutta Wiegmann, Psychoanalytische Geschichtstheorie: Ein Studie zur Freud- RezeptionWalter Benjamins, p. 95.

113. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, pp. 165, 176; GS I, pp. 618, 632.114. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 84; GS II, p. 439.115. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften II, p. 218.116. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 108; GS II, p. 464.117. Ibid., p. 87; GS II, p. 443.

118. Ibid., p. 93; GS II, p. 449.119. Ibid., p. 102; GS II, p. 457.

120. Ibid., p. 91; GS II, p. 446.121. Ibid., p. 93; GS II, p. 449.122. Ibid., p. 159; GS I, p. 611.

123. Ibid., p. 87; GS II, p. 442.124. Ibid., p. 95; GS II, p. 451.125. Ibid., p. 96; GS II, p. 452.

126. Ibid., p. 179; GS II, p. 297.

127. Ibid., p. 190; GS II, pp. 307308.128. Richard Wolin, Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption, p. 213.129. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 89; PH, p. 99.130. Ibid., p. 89; PH, p. 99.131. Margaret Cohen, Profane Illumination: Walter Benjamin and the Paris of Surrealist

Revolution, pp. 2, 120.132. Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project, p. 389; GS V, p. 492.133. Walter Benjamin, RE The Theory of Knowledge, Theory of Progress, in Gary

Smith, ed.,Benjamin: Philosophy, Aesthetics, History,


31/36


143. Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften III, p. 559; Walter Benjamin, The Correspondenceof Walter Benjamin, 19101940, p. 139; BR, p. 208.

144. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 150; GS II, p. 535.145. Ibid., p. 235; GS II, p. 698.146. Ibid., p. 151; GS II, p. 536.

147. Ibid., pp. 151, 153; GS II, pp. 536, 538.148. Walter Benjamin, Understanding Brecht, p. 12; GS II, p. 530.149. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 154; GS II, p. 539.150. Walter Benjamin, Understanding Brecht, p. 1; GS II, p. 519.151. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 154; GS II, p. 539; Walter Benjamin, Understanding

Brecht, p. 1; GS II, p. 519.152. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, p. 250; GS II, p. 379.153. Ibid., p. 220; GS I, p. 476.154. Ibid., p. 188; GS I, p. 647.

155. Ibid., p. 344; GS I, p. 481.156. Ibid., p. 224; GS I, p. 480.157. Ibid., p. 221; GS I, p. 477.

158. Ibid., p. 220; GS I, p. 475.159. Ibid., p. 223; GS I, p. 479.160. Ibid., p. 224; GS I, p. 481.

161. Walter Benjamin, One Way Street and Other Writings, p. 240; GS II, 368.162. Ibid., p. 247; GS II, pp. 375376.163. Ibid., p. 248; GS II, p. 377.

164. Ibid., p. 229; GS I, p. 489.

165. Richard Wolin, Walter Benjamin: An Aesthetic of Redemption, pp. 187188.166. Ernst Bloch, Geist der Utopie, Erste Fassung, p. 407; Ernst Bloch, Man on his Own,

p. 38; GU2, p. 304.167. Ernst Bloch, Thomas Mnzer als Theologer der Revolution, p. 229.168. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 69; AC, p. 98.169. Alfred Jger, Reich ohne Gott: Zur Eschatologie Ernst Blochs, p. 66.170. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1232; PH, p. 1453.171. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 16; AC, p. 15.172. Ibid., p. 117; AC, p. 160.

173. Ibid., pp. 117118; AC, p. 161.174. Ernst Bloch, Atheismus im Christentum, pp. 115116.175. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1270; PH, p. 1500.176. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 115; AC, p. 157.177. Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, p. 1235; PH, p. 1456.178. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity, p. 108; AC, p. 150.179. Carl Heinz Ratschow, Atheismus im Christentu

warren goldstein messianism and marxism

Documents