Bataille versus Theory*
"That sand into which we bury ourselves in order not to
see, is formed of words..."
Georges Bataille, Inner Experience
|
The writings of Georges Bataille have recently become the
object of a certain resurgence, or rather, a recuperation, within the academy.
As Bataille's death in 1962 recedes into the past, the number of critical
essays and articles about him continues to grow at an incredible rate. Most
of this criticism has taken the approach of situating Bataille and his ideas into
a pre-determined framework of "postmodern" thought, either through
the systematic embellishment of his role as an intellectual influence on Foucault,
Derrida, and others, or his role as an intermediary figure between Nietzsche and
the French postmodernists. While there certainly is merit and validity in
linking Bataille intellectually to these writers, it is the radicalness and originality
of Bataille's writing that ultimately become lost in these analyses when viewed
through such an historical lens. It seems inevitable that Bataille, like
Nietzsche, will be subjected to a critical scrutiny, which, in the guise of earnest
analyses and close readings, serves foremost to dispel the threat that such writers
pose to academia. A calculated process of taming is deployed against these
radical thinkers, assuring that this procession of commentaries and dissections
will leave nothing but an amelioration of the original work. To avoid this,
I will not concern myself with situating Bataille's writings within the present
state of theory (whether it be philosophical, critical, sociological, or psychological).
Rather, I think it would be more noble to attempt a critique of the theoretical
enterprise by analyzing it through Bataille's own array of concepts. If
the ideas of thinkers such as Nietzsche, Sade, or Bataille are to be afforded
the credence they deserve, it is only fitting that theory itself be judged according
to their claims, which may run in opposition to the claims made by traditional
theory.
Georges
Bataille organizes his writings around many core concepts or ideas, many of which
remain diffuse and somewhat underdeveloped in their definitions or meanings. Communication,
sovereignty, heterology, inner experience, the sacred, dépense or expenditure,
transgression, excess, etc., each concept appears in his texts as a momentary
connotation, a brief enunciation that creates an impact in the reader, then disappears
before becoming fully ensnared within the parameters of conceptualization. Perhaps
it is this vagueness or ambiguity inherent in all of Bataille's concepts that
prevents them from being appropriated by the theoretical mainstream and being
put to work in a dogmatic system. In order for an idea to be put to work,
for it to be able to perform a function, it must first perhaps have a proper definition,
which many of Bataille's concepts lack. The broadness of his terms -- indeed,
Bataille's move from a restrictive to a general economy shows a digression from
the specific, from specialization -- may keep them from being utilized by others;
this subversion of utility arises from the difficulty of pinpointing where or
when a Bataillean concept begins or ends. This sacrifice of clarity certainly
is an intentional strategy, Bataille's own "employment" of unworkable
concepts. It is within this arena of thought that I wish to examine the
contemporary state of theory.
When
one wants to discuss things such as philosophy, literature, and poetry, as such,
in their broadest sense, it seems impossible to provide a working definition that
encapsulates enough of the defined to provide a basis for meaningful discourse.
As soon as one makes statements about "philosophy" et al. the
stage is set for interpretive breakdown. Without a general concept of "philosophy"
there will be confusion as to the term's meaning. With such a normative concept,
there will be disagreement over the validity of such a norm. Traditionally,
philosophers have countered the problems of conceptual vagueness by imposing stricter
and stricter specialization on their terms. Bataille, on the other hand,
has reveled in the imprecision of such terms as "philosophy," and, instead
of specializing and building on such traditional notions, he has deployed his
own set of concepts from the basis of whim (which he saw as the opposite of specialization).
His attacks against philosophy strike it as a generality, before the complexities
and specialties of epistemology, ontology, philosophy of language, etc. muddy
the issue and make such a meta-critique more difficult. For Bataille, philosophy
must be attacked insofar as it is a general project, not in its particular and
multiple manifestations, and this can only be done by contrasting philosophy with
other general concepts that differ from and oppose it -- the sacred, excess, communication,
etc. With this view in mind, I will attempt to compare and critique the theoretical
enterprise itself, using Bataille's notions as both guidelines and weapons. First,
though, I should remark on the victim, the generality referred to as "theory."
Theory
-- again, whether it be philosophical, critical, sociological, etc. -- can be
said to consist of a variety of related movements. It can be considered
as the analyses of givens, predictions for the future, the systematic organization
of knowledge, the very path along which thought must follow, or even thought itself.
Theory is almost invariably a process that maintains knowledge -- guaranteed by
certainty -- as its end result. Bataille contests the claim that a process
of examination leads somehow to knowledge, because for him this external theorizing
can only depart from or deny the only certain knowledge that humans may have:
"We have in fact only two certainties in this world -- that we are
not everything and that we will die."
Bataille
posits knowledge of death not as the end result of a theoretical operation, but
as an inner experience from which everything else radiates. This knowledge
of death is in no way an understanding or comprehension of death; it is only the
certainty that death will some day consume us, only a knowledge of mortality.
Death cannot be regarded as an object of knowledge because it cannot be
managed or subordinated by thought. Death is sovereign, hence inconceivable.
Knowledge of our own mortality can only be peripheral to death itself. (Bataille's
other certainty, "that we are not everything," paves the way for his
notions of heterology and discontinuity.) Thus, the supposed end-product of theory,
knowledge, is declared impossible by Bataille, except for the certainties of death
and the discontinuity of beings. He writes: "we can have no knowledge
except to know that knowledge is finite." Death, in the end, consumes
thought.
Any
truth claims of theory are not sustainable according to Bataille's rigid criteria
for knowledge -- namely, that only absolute certainty could guarantee knowledge.
Bataille's thought desires to exceed the very notion that knowledge is possible
or that theory produces what it claims: "going to the end means at least
this: that the limit, which is knowledge as a goal, be crossed."
Bataille
continues to attack knowledge insofar as it relates to the strivings of theory,
with knowledge either as the end product of theory's work or as the presumed foundation
from which theory issues. Since knowledge is always linked to work and project,
it is always servile to a concern for the future; it takes us away from the sovereignty
of inner experience, which is only concerned with the moment. This inner
experience is incapable of theorization; it evades the project-oriented grasp
of language: "Everyday the sovereignty of the moment is more foreign
to the language in which we express ourselves, which draws value back to utility:
what is sacred, not being an object, escapes our apprehension. There is
not even, in this world, a way of thinking that escapes servitude, an available
language such that in speaking it we do not fall back into the immutable rut as
soon as we are out of it."
Bataille's
suspicion, even hatred, of language runs deep. However, this does not prevent
him from according theory, philosophy, and science their place in the world. He
believed that man should relegate such operations to a less prominent role in
his thought, and instead concentrate more on his own inner experience. Bataille
creates a dichotomy between experience and theory --with silence, sovereignty,
and concern with the moment functioning as aspects of inner experience, and language,
servility, and preparation for the future existing as inherent aspects of theory.
By opposing language with inner experience, Bataille creates a dilemma for
himself and his own writings. His steadfast position makes him something
of an idealist regarding inner experience; Bataille leaves little room for reconciliation
between a true silence that resists definitions and a sovereign use of language
that is able to resist project. It is poetry, he finally decides, that is
able to occupy this space, as a form of language that is sacred -- a term Bataille
used atheistically to mean opposed to utility, usefulness, and concern for the
future.
Even
with his extreme cynicism that theory could ever transgress the servile nature
of language in order to offer a glimpse into inner experience, Bataille continued
to write -- and not just poetry. In order to justify the agenda behind theoretical
writings like Nietzsche's or his own, which were able to perform a metaphilosophical
critique of theory while still using some of its forms of questioning, Bataille
needed to temper his idealism with a modified definition of project:
"Nevertheless
inner experience is project, no matter what. It is such -- man being entirely
so through language which, in essence with the exception of its poetic perversion,
is project. But project is no longer in this case that, positive, of salvation,
but that, negative, of abolishing the power of words, hence of project."
In
other words, his is a theory that questions itself by attacking the foundation
of theory itself -- language. In this way, through a type of writing that
strives for silence, even topics such as inner experience can be broached.
"Principle of inner experience: to emerge through project from the realm
of project." Although Bataille writes that "the nature of experience
is, apart from derision, not to be able to exist as project," it is
this derisive character of experience that can be expressed in a theory that ridicules
itself, that acknowledges the impossibility of its own goal -- knowledge.
Bataille
finds the perfect form of such anti-foundational thinking in the aphoristic writings
of Nietzsche:
"I
am talking about the discourse that enters into darkness and that the very light
ends by plunging into darkness (darkness being the definitive silence). I
am talking about the discourse in which thought taken to the limit of thought
requires the sacrifice, or death, of thought. To my mind, this is the meaning
of the work and life of Nietzsche."
Not
only did Nietzsche mirror Bataille's own disgust for Christianity and philosophy,
but the writing form which Nietzsche championed, the aphorism, became another
weapon in Bataille's arsenal, a "useful" tool against the utility of
philosophical language. Only an aphoristic, fragmentary writing can harbor
the violent, sacred qualities of poetry; only an incomplete form of writing can
trace or elucidate the impossibility of knowledge as a product of theory, by revealing
a lack within knowledge itself. For Bataille, the swift violence of aphorism
was the most effective method of attacking philosophical theory, by critiquing
all theoretical foundations in a series of broad strokes:
"A
continual challenging of everything deprives one of the power of proceeding by
separate operations, obliges one to express oneself through rapid flashes, to
free as much as is possible the expression of one's thought from a project, to
include everything in a few sentences..."
It
was this stylistic strategy that Bataille adopted for circumventing theoretical
project, and he understood the difficulty -- in fact, the impossibility -- of
proceeding any other way. Bataille believed that only a violent theory could
usurp a utilitarian one, only a violent theory could clear the way for violence,
which would put an end to the possibility of language. The excess of violence
is silent, "the opposite of the solidarity with other people implicit in
logic, laws and language." In a way, violence consumes theory; its
very excess countermines reason. He writes: "the expression of
violence comes up against the double opposition of reason which denies it and
of violence itself which clings to a silent contempt for the words used about
it."
And
there is certainly a violent nature to Bataille's nihilistic critique of theory
and philosophy. Indeed, he may consider one deficit of philosophy to be
that it does not strive violently for silence, but instead only labors meekly
over question after question:
"Philosophy
cannot escape from this limit of philosophy, of language, that is. It uses language
in such a way that silence never follows, so that the supreme moment is necessarily
beyond philosophical questioning. At any rate it is beyond philosophy as far as
philosophy claims to answer its own questions."
Philosophical
theory, lost in the servility of work, is doomed to struggle from an untenable
foundation (a non-arbitrary basis for language) to an impossible end-product (certain
knowledge, besides that of mortality or the discontinuity of beings). Bataille
believed that "goal and authority are the requirements for discursive thought"
and that subsequently "discourse forms projects." If this goal
is knowledge, this authority, for philosophy, is ultimately external and metaphysical,
hence religious. For Bataille, the only authority is inner experience, but
its authority is in no way externalized. Outside the self, there was only
chance and the randomness of the universe. "Instead of God, chance."
If
theory sought the guarantee of a god to support its claims, it was both misguided
and ultimately empty of value. "For those who grasp what chance is,
the idea of God seems insipid and suspicious, like being crippled."
Bataille
was no irrationalist, but his critique of the metaphysics anchoring theory ultimately
involved a rejection of reason itself, in order to purge the mind of any need
for a connection with a god or metaphysical foundation:
"But
the supreme abuse which man ultimately made of his reason requires a last sacrifice:
reason, intelligibility, the ground itself upon which he stands--man must reject
them, in him God must die; this is the depth of terror, the extreme limit where
he succumbs."
It
is an ecstatic moment of doubt. He believed that "one reaches ecstasy by
a contestation of knowledge." Bataille's challenge to theory reaches
its zenith as the abandonment or transgression of reason's need for God.
"Salvation is the summit of all possible project and the height of matters
related to projects." Bataille's atheology replaces the authority of
metaphysical foundation with the sovereign authority of experience, and the work
of philosophy is overcome in an act of transgression:
"Compared
with work, transgression is a game. In the world of play, philosophy disintegrates.
If transgression became the foundation-stone of philosophy (this is how
my thinking goes), silent contemplation would have to be substituted for language.
This is the contemplation of being at the pinnacle of being."
It
is at this pinnacle that theory itself becomes a victim, a sacrifice at the hands
of a great, "silent" theorist -- Georges Bataille.
*Note:
this essay first appeared in The Absinthe Literary Review.
_______________________________________________________
return to top