o

r0 (1010) lol-3:3

lsr

uf
ar
in
stl

Jefltey Bernstein
(,,lhge ol thc Holr- (

ross. \\'orce\rcr.

ln

\lA. Li\ \

ri\

A ntinomical M essianis m :
Agamben's Interpretation of Benjamin's "History" Theses

n(

in

tIt
Think $hat it would bc to have a work conccived liom outside the seit. a work that would
let us escape the limited perspective of the individual cgo, not only 1() entcr into sclves like
our o\\'n but to gi\e spcech to that which has no language. to thc bird perching on lhe edge
ofthe gutter, to the tree in spring and the lree in lilll. to stone, to ecment, to plastic...
Was this not perhaps rvhat Ovid was aiming at, uhen he *rote about the continuity of
fornrs? And what Lucretius was aiming at when hc identiticd himsell with that naturc
common to each and eYery thing)

C.

Italo Calvinol

te

The nrore passionately thought denies its conditionality for drc sake tll'the unconditional,
the more unconsciously, and so calamitously. it is delivered up to the world.

P:

'Iheodor Adomo:
I ntroduclttn'
l

tle

nx)\

t'i)t

The

Provocqri<.tns

.\dt Ilillcnnittn.

v^ns.. Patrrck ( rcigh (Na$ York: Virtag!' Inter-

- lheodnr Atlorno. lliniDtt .lh,dltu Rllectiotls (h ,1 Ddnagrd Lile. trans.- Edmond Jephcot{ (New

,.,

IIranktirrt anr Mrin: Suhrkirmp Verl0g. l95l]).

'(iiorgio Agan)b!'n. Tht htl Ol Th( I't,en SnkliL\

Stanford Uni\ersit:- Pre\s- 1999)-

Ldirori. l9q6l).

\i

sI

B
pi

Rentu'ks

The above epigrams are included here insolhr as thcy bear distinct relations to the work
of Giorgio Agarnben precisely in thcir contlict rvith a cenain aspect ol'his thought. The
first epigram cornes lrorr Calvino's 1985-86 Charles Eliot Norton Lectures which, according to Aganrben, echo the close work the two shared lbet*een the years ol 1974
and 1976) in their attempts to "dellne the progam ol'a rer iew" rr hich "rvas to be dedicated 1rl . . . idcntilying nothing less than the categorial structures of ltalian culture".l
The second epigram (somewhat more central to the topic ol this paper) comes from a
philosopher whose own rvork shares *ith Agamben a passionate claim to proximity
with respect to thc thought of Walter Benjarnin. Thesc epigrams. are mcant as provocations insofar as thcy raise the significant issue oi Agamben's antinomical tnessian-

' trato Calvino..S*

national. l99l). l :,{.

Sr

la

hi

P.

(ll
H

t.
B,

ul

P.!tir:

trrns.. I)aniel ilellcr-Roazen {Stanford:

(!)riginally puhlrshed as (orLcd'ia lrdliuL': .S/ri./l ./i 2.)elnrl lluarsilio
h1

l:

ism- -i.e.. his desire to "think a human community that would not have (only) the figure o1'the laui'.r Pace Calvino. rhis desire constitutes an inrpulse {in however nuanced
ard mediated a manner) to break with history. Pace Adorno, this desire, constitutes an
impulse (despite its materialist style) to reach a montent of unconditionality (or, 'as
such') with respect to language, thought, and possible ensuing lbrms of life (or, in
Agamben's terms. 'the coming community'). Thus, while both epigrams share commitnrenls with Agambcn's thought (i.e., the radical questioning of both modern subjec-

010) 304-323

tivity and a thinking which would deny its own finitude), they sharply difltr liom
Agamben's approach lo such commitments.
These themes-history, conditionality and their rejection in Agamben's antinomical messianisrn-are the themes which will be presently taken up. To lay them out
in a manner appropriate to the space allotted fbr this paper, they will be initially raised
within the general context of Agamben's usage of Jewish sources and subsequently
treated in the .specilic context of his interpretation of Walter Benjamin's theses "On the
Concept of H istory".

Theses

ork that would

into sell es like

ng on thc edge

2. Jewish Sources in Aganthen

lastic...
e continuit.v of
nature

ith dlat
hato

CrIinol

unconditional.

to the work
thought. The
:s which. acears ol' 1974
rs to be dedian culture".l
omes liom a

Sensitive readers ol'Agamben's texts cannot fail to notice his continuous and quite
specific usage of Jeu ish sources n'lost ol u'hich occur in his texts on Walter Benjamin.
The sources primarily inhabit an interpretive range spanning from what might be
termed 'unconventional' to'heretical' (at least within the conlexl oflhe normative rabbinic tradition). Examples include (l) a discussion of Shabbatai Sevi's statement that
"'violation of the Torah is its fulfillment"''. 12) a discussion of rhe Angel of History in
Benjamin's "History" theses uhich draws from Kabalistic texts (particularly the Zohar) (P: 146\, and (3) a discussion ofthe Genesis story as retold in the Midrashic compilation Genesrs Rabbah in order to illustrate messianic time as it comes to be formulated along Pauline (and, for Agamben, de.facto Benjaminian) lines.6 Ifone includes
his usage ofthe Talrnud (in. e.g.. his essay on Derrida entitled 'Pardes'[P: 205-219]). a

proxinity

as pro\ oca:al rnessian-

1(iiorgio

/ii!.

ll5

Il

Agamhen- "ln This !-\ilc (ltalian DiaD. 199:-199.1)'. in.lleans

hout End .*tes On httitrans.. Vincenzo BiDetli a'ld Cesarc Casarino (Minncapolis: Unirersity of Minnesota Press. 2000). I34{originally published as trtczzi san:a.lin! JTurin: Bollati tsoringhieri. 19961). llencefbrth as (MWE:

lage number).

'(riorgro i\gumhcn. Thc Messrirh and thc So\erei!n. rt Pot ti liti(. Coll(\1ld Essu.ts tn Phitosr'pirr. ed. an-d trais.. Daniel Hcller-RoaTen (Slanlird: Stanii)rd Universitl- Press. I999). 167. Hencclorth as

(P: page unlbcr). Scc also (jiorgio ASanrben. l/orl, S./.c/. .So|etcign h\tet.unLl Bure /-ilc. lrans.. DaDi('l
Hcllcr-Roazcn (Stanibrd: Stanlbrd Lhiversity l'rcss. l99ll). 56-57 loriuinally published as lbmo Su(o.:
porL'n sorrunt a b nt({r |r/r? (Turin: Ciulio Einaudi. 1995}. llcncelbflh as (HS: prge number). .{gamben s
exanrplcs lcnd to occur in nultiple te\rs. [:or purposes ol'bre\it]. I \\ ill relcr onll lo the pcrlinenl llxlual

ll

.1 (bnn!tit.tr\'ot th( l.(ler b th, n.)r,.r/r.\. lrans-. PatriSlanlbrd Unircrsil\ Pre\s. l0(,5)- 71-7: (originall) publishcd as ll rttnpo che restu.
L.:n tonntcnrrt ullu Lerron ui RonluDi ltutin Bollari BonnBhicri. 2(l{)01). llcnccli)flh as (TR: pagc number)
Whil!'this te\l rs oslcnsibl! a commentary on Puul s Lcltcr 10 thc Ronuns. it ultllrately dl3ploys Paul itnd
Benjarnru as parallcl fironrcnts ofa dialecticil inralc in ordcr lo shou ho\r their tcrls beslo$ intelligibilrll''
up(nr cach othcr llence. Nhal Agarnben acconrplishes is an intcresting Pauline rerdtng olElcniamin \rhich
is srnruhuncousl\ .r Ben.laninian readirrg of Pdul. For this rcason. 1 includc it. \\'ilb some hesirNlion. among
ABinrbc. s tcrls dc.rling $ith Benjxrrin Cl.. Giorgio Acrnrhcn. "Tlrc-limc Thal ls Leli. l7rrcic, Vol. 7.

"

(liorgio Agambcn. Tfu hne Thur Renoin\

cil Baile) (Slllnli)rd:

Jephcoll (Ne\!

rTcn

(Slinlo

tlli ./ llvlrr\ilio

lssuL'

| ( Fall lool

). 7'8.

306

llll

kr

\ l:ill{Nslll\

strurccs irl $hich Agambcn's

picture bcgins to emcrge conccrning thc tcrrittn ol Jerrish
thought
" ' -" movos.
Aganrben'
n."J.^ *lght be tempted to ask thc lbllou'ing question: \\hy rvould
than
Seri'rather
Shabbati
and
p;il;;;;;"t. iicq ue nt the Talmud. Midrash' Zohai' (c
rnfhc
t'
g
Mrttnonide'
" lunt"n,l,,,t"ll1 rec.gniztrJ philo'ophicrrl sotrr(cs
",
in,oJ
.

would

Agatnbe'n s anlittomicalism
.*", to ,ttil; question is JtLaightiuruard cnough: tratlition,(or
anv rradition' firr that
the Je*ish
;:;.;;;i;; tio* p-...aingihrough
'conventional recogas
lnsofar
ol ihe'conventional

matter) according to the catcgory

times oppressively-rcgulatcs cunrnruni,rl,f ,r""*rrf a l'uriction as a /a-r, ir hich-nrany
in
Agamben's irnpulse would be to take up this tradition
ti.r'i,fir.u,i*. or otheruise).
..what-is at issue here are nor simply antinomical tendenL ies
manner:
its origii".onliont the pleromatic state in $ hich the Torah' restored to
of unormedley
a
only
but
prohibitions
nal tbrm, contains neither commandments nor
lies the
as
strch
law
geyona
heytrnd
hulukhu
dered letters."(P: 167: italics minei
'!i
Altambcn s desire is to rap into' via

;;;;;;;t;i";"i
il;;;;;fi;

;'.pcriencing tradition ditl"rcntlv

conlronmtion. lhe potcnliality ol'other crperiences'
about the placement
However. it one \ere to specify this question so that tt asks
thought, a conllict
of Jewish sources I.iarlr the p,.",l,rkinu,,t .ontcxt oJ Btty,nnin .s
ofJewish sources were very
arises. The conventional answer would be that these types
rvould need to
i"ri".",i"i"" g*lamin's thought; hence, an interpreiaiion of Benjarnin
interpretalion by Certake into account such sources (in addition to th;ir subsequent
certainly include
shom Scholem). Although Rgamben's interpretations of Benjamin

;i;;,i;ii;;f

,\lt
lht
M.
e-q

tht
eg
o1'

fu
ra
t()i
SLI

he

p(
tc

hi
rh
St

tr.

jc'
tl:

o'

be given a difthcse elements. his antinornical de,i," ntt""it'ttt that these inclusions
a
conrentional
in
f"i"", ,", of."o.nnr' Put difl'erentiy. \\ h) 'rtirt Benjamin be readbe justi/iedl
w.hat
*unn"r't rn the name o1'rvhat /ro| could such a rcatling ultimarely
l1'Aganrben
con\ention?
."uld posrlblv bcsto\\ /(3rlix'rrl('rt. to srid
;';';i;t;;;t
of a
question thl normatir it! ol rradition as such'. then a re-reading
into
call
a..ir*?
stated'
Ditlbrently
question
in
gi"." ,r"Ai,i"" cannot simply appcal to the normarir ity
rvays
i"..",i'r" or con\entional nunii'estutiont of tradition arc precis<h foreclosed as
to
- scnse ol'interpretive practiccs
'- makc
and normative conii .lgu.U.n wants Io interrupt tbe priority of conventional question
can.be anthe
abo\e
way
t.*,, io. hlr,ori.ul appropriation. ihen the only
of Jewish
concatenation
swered is by reversing the terms--i.e , Agamben's iarricular
tbr interconvcntion
a
on
to
rely
in
ordei
rirt
r""t*. *iii Benjamii's thought occurs
g.niu*in Uut rather that the Jewish intellectual tradition can be lvrested from
tradition of nor"."iinn
i;r';;";i;;;ii,t noi ,+guto"n' Benjarnin is not the end offora long
a marginalreleasing
of
departure
point
ttre
rnative Judaism: instead, he consiitutet
to a substiamounts
ln
Agamben's.tiro.ught'.this
ir.J f,rir,orv oiphilosophical JuJaisrn
foprimary
tutio" oiiiguriiy by messianism as Judaisri's (and' in lirct' all religion's)
cateone
..The tiesis I would like to adyance is that the messianic kingdom is
cus:
'ot
lne
linrtt conccpt
urnong others within religious experience but is' rather' its

tl.

hc does makc rcl'ercntc lo llre

Agon,turn r r"*o u.. no(.d,?/e/8/r \oid ol-relcrencc to Maimonidcsl
/\gamben s rclirence crccurs
therc
ercn
llo$e"er'
Banleby
on
his
essay
t:'r'ceniury ptrilovrpherrrabhi in
ofo c,rtion conldined in
rliscLrssit-rn
iao"hic
rr,*
rtr
or.v"tnlonia"il d.Jirriif.i.itn
ifl" iri"i"i
Is
"r,"rt
"1,n.here-'rradrtional'philo\ophl_ is rcsittrated such thai ils slatus

!o.y

t,nka Rtthhi F,li!:(rtp.15:- l fhus. e\ren

dcrivativc.

T
d
S.

t:
tr

I
i
I

ga

mbeD's

\gambcn.

lther than
I The anrm nould
1. lbr that
nal recttgcomt'nuniradition in
o its oligiy of unor'/r, lies thc

p into. via
placenlcnt

a conllict
\\,crc \ er)'
rld need to
-rn by Ger-

rly includc
:ir en a ditl

Messictlt i.r. irt othcr vrrds. the /igttt'c through vltiL'h religion tonfionls the prohlem o/
lhc Lqv, det i.s it'c l.t' rat koning rlil/r /1. (P: l6l)
One might statc Agamben's overall interpretive strategy in the lblloring manner:
Mcssianisnr (and its concomitant antinonrical structure) senes as the paradigmatic cat
egory through which Aganrben's interpretation ol'Benjan'rin systcrnatically tunctions as
thc condition lbr a rnarginalized history o1' philosophica I Judaisnr. ls the status ofa category such as'antinotnical rnessianism' open to question with respecl to interpretatiolls
ol Benjanrin (particularlv rvith respcct to the interesting project of using Benjamin to
fitnction as thc condition 1br another history of philosophical Judaisrn)'.) After an exploration ol Aganrben's rcadiug o1'Benjarnin's seminal theses "On thc Concept of llistory" (which occurs tlrroughout Agamben's many texts dealing u,ith Benjamin). I will
suggest thc alternati\c category ol'iconoclasm' (referring to the ban trn graren images.

hele understootl-in its Medie\al Jeuish formulation- as a critique of theologicalpolitical representation) as a nrorc viable route through which to interpret Benjanrin's
text, insofar as it signals neithel a dognratic acceptancc o1. nor a radical rejection of'.
history. This categorial substitution. I belier e. u ould also better f'acilitrte an attempt to
think about another history of philosophical Judaism. This paper $ill, theretbre. assume the fbllorving structurc: (l ) a brief outlinc of Aqamben's oyerall philosophical
trajectory ($'ith emphasis on his antinomical messianism), (f) a discussion of this trajectory as it concretely manil'ests itself in Agambcn's interpretation ol Benjarnin's "On
the Concept ol'Historl''. (3)the beginnings ofan alternatire iconoclastic interpretation
o1'Beniamin's text. and (4) concluding suggestions conceming another way to begin
thinking about a marginalized history ofphilosophical Judaism.

)n\ entional

/)r:dl'What
l' Agamben
cading of

:ntl!

s1atcd.
;ccl as u a;-s

ttatir,e concart bc ann of Ieu ish

ru for interlcsted liont

tion ol' nu a marginal-

L Agumhen's Philosophit al Trujectorr

The prospect o1'yoking togcther Agamberr's raried and u ide-ranging theoretical interests is a daunting onc. espccially giren the transfbrmations in emphasis that they undcrgo during difitrent periods oJ'his career (e.g.. liom Iinguistic-literary analyses to
social-political ones). Horcver. the samc claim can be rnade about Agarnben's philosophical trajcctor) that Agan.rben makes (rnistake'nl}. in rnr,ricr) about Benjamin's:
"the more onc analyses [it]. the more it appears . . . to bc anirnated by a rigorously systematic intention".(P: 155-156) This interrtion can be illustrated via a briel' discussion
regarding tbur contcnrporar\ philosophical figurcs

ho cxert a structuring inlluence on

Aganrben's thoughl: Marlin Heidcgger (uhosc 196(r and I968 Lc Thor senrinals
Agarrben attcrrded';. Michcl Foucault. Sinronc Weil (on uhom Agamben \\ rote a thesis at thc University ol Rornc"l. ancl Waltcr Ben-iarnin (uhosc ('ollected ltalian Eclition

,1() a substi-

primary

lir

tol one ca{e'

onccPl.771('

'\\rthout

nrcruring lo broiich the dillicuh qucstron ol c\enri\irl nlcnr(ir\. on. is tcnlpled lo spccul:rtc
a slron! ad\oeirlc lirr his antin,'rnical j|lrl]ulsc rl cerlain \lrtenrcnts nradc b1 Hcidcgger
irl ihe l9()N Thor rcrninur tc g, orr .\ulru\l lo): "lhcrc ctln hc no rlrthoril\. since sc \orl iD connron. \\'c
\!ork ir r)rdcrlo rcirch ti]r martcr itse li *hich rs in qucslidr Ihusrhcmrrtcr rlscll rs !h('solc irulln)ril). in

thrt Aranrbcrr li\rnd

lnr\cr\it\ Prc\\.:o('-lr. l0l.fl!inril\puhlrshedrn(icnrranusJir.\trrrrrat'lLThot l96L l96li. l96t)

ed..(urr()ch\\ir(11 |l:ranllirrl i r \1uin:VL orio Klosler rn|1. 1977])
"Sc': Itlanrl (l! ll l)Llrirnla\!. (iirtr,!r ly,t l',tt I (rt!kdl !trt,rt t tt,r) \Stanli,(l: Slrnli)rd Unr\ersilt

ltjltr))]t,,l.):.1.

I).css- lllrl9). Srn.c thr r,rnllrlrdn ol lhi\ paPcr. tlc l:r l)Lrr'antare. rcrr has cnrergerl irs thc rrosl irr-(leplh
rnd Lonrl)rchcn\r!e slud\ (rl A1lrrrlbcn s thourhr. Allhoulrh I hir\c r)('1 had lirnc lo,rorsuit it tltcply. I netc+
lhrlrs\ rl11)ngl] rerorrlr!r(l il r,, r!](lcr\ nlcrcsl.(l rl lhc l(,li(' eo\cred in thi( pafcr

Jr

J08

fRr

llt\\rr\

Agamben directed). Simply statcd, lleideggcr prolides the matcrials tbr the originury
erpcricnce ol" inf'ancy'. Foucault provides thc rnaterials fbr the politicrl rnallsis of
'biopolitics'. Weil prol ides the inrpetus lbr the nrcssianic rctuln to inlancy (ternred
'decreation'). and Bertjamin provides the antinomical practice of articulatirrg marginal-

Ilo n

ized histories of the 'suppressed past'which nrakes the messianic return possible.
There are two reasons rvhich immediately recommend proceeding in such a
manner. First. such a procedure will thcilitate a transition to a more detailed treatment
of the fburth of these tigures lBenjarrin) in the second section of this paper. Second.

css(

this procedure highlights the importance of contemporaneity fbr Aganrben's prqect.

While interpretations of'historical ligures and texts occur throughout Agamben's phi-

whi
Agr
niu
ing

losophical trajectory. his antinonrical tendencies lead him to tind conceptual organization within contemporary discussions uhich are sonretimes at odds with historical
analysis (understood in its more traditional man it'estations ). For this rcason. criticism of
Agamben's historical treatments do not fully address his project. To the quite legiti-

lar
otht

oll
stea

mot

this

ion

mate concern that his antinomically messianic impulse finds Iittle analogue \\'ithin the
rabbinic Jewish intellectual tradition (even considered in its more marginal aspects).r'r
one would have lo confront the follo*ing response: any criticism of Agamben's historical work as unconventional simply repeats the hegemony of historical conventions.
For this reason, any reflection upon Agamben's project rvill (ultimately and inevitably)
find itself confronting his interpretations of contemporary thought.
Agamben's interest in Heidegger lies in the latter's thinking of Erergnls as the
originary concealed transmissive occurrence which makes experience possible: "With
Ereignis, . . . being itself is experienced as such. "( P: I 2 8 ) ln thinking this originary
occurrence with respect to language, Agamben finds that (in the manner of the onticontological difference) language fundamentally contains a potencyrr which is irreducible to regionalized linguistic acts: "How can there be a language in u'hich destining is
no longer withdrawn from u.hat is destined, if not in the fbrrn of a language in nhich
saying is no longer hidden in what is said, in rvhich the pure language of names no

(as

longer decays into concrete events of speechl"(P: 132) This "pure-and itself untransmissible-movement by which saying comes to speech"(P: 132) can be "cxperienced in human speech as such"(P; 132), thus allorving lor the possibility of issuing in
a difi'erent ethical comportment rvhich Agamben refers to ria the category of experi-

ci)

mennm linguae (i.e.. the experience that 'there is language'): "The first outcome olthe
experimentltm linguae, therefore, is a radical revision of the very idea of Community. .
. [W]hat then is the correct expression tbr the existence of language? The only possible
answer to this question is: human life, as e/hoJ, as ethical *uy."'t Thir originary occurrence-or, in Agamben's rvords. "transcendental experience"(IH: 52)--of dilitrentia-

nei

anc

the
an(

Ag
reg

sic

col
ha:

'ru
col

rie
pl
ge,

3lll

l9
F:i'

r0

Ct. Ephraim E. Urbach. t/re.!irge.r. The ltbrtrl And ll'istlont Ol Thc Rtfthis Ol The Tdlnutt. tt.nns.,
Israel Abrahanrs (Crmbridge: Harvard Universiry Prcss. 1987). 186-31"1. 6-19-690 (originally publishod as
Ho:ol. ptke enntnot v-le;r [Jerusalem: The Magnes Prcss. The Hebrcw t.lnircrsity of Jcrusalem. 1969]).
B) potency potcnrialil) . AJamben is hcre thinkine ola transccndentalcapacity for the possibility
ot something's,?ot being.(see Rrmndrts
,1
Tfu lritne.\ dn.! the .1khi|e (Hotto Sacer tll),
lrans.. Daniel Heller-Roazen [Neu York: Zonc Books. 19991. l4f-146 loriginally published as Qut,l the

tl

rin

lthtir:

rc:itadi Au:(hwitz. !, anlliw e il testinon( lHuno Sa..er lllt lTurin: BollaliBoringhri. l9q8il).
rr
Ciorgio Agamben. lnfund & tlisrrtt'v: Esjats on the D.,s!nktidt,t/ EVei-i.,nr.e. trans.. l-iz l{eron
(New York: Verso Flooks. 1993).9-10 (originally published as tnlun:id e r/.r.i/ (Turn: Ciulio Einaudi,
1978). Hencelirrth lls (lH: page numbcr)

Pr

tlr

(\
lil

ible.

in such a
d treatment

cr. Second.
n's project.
nben's phirl organizah historical
criticisn.t of
luite legiti: within the
aspectsl,r"

nben's hisonventions.

inevitably)
lg?rs as the

;ible: "With

is originary
rf the onticis ineducidestining is
ge in which

,f names no
d itself unbe "experirf issuing in
y of erperi.cone of the
ommunity.

nly possible
inaly occur''differentia-

puhlisherl as
ialenr. 196gll.
the possibilitl

l.--

as Qrr.'/ , /rc

8il)

ms.- l-i,/

lntet?tetulk!

Ql

4!!i!!lt!

Hi!!9!.1'

llllles

.,-.!$9

far as it "frrst opens the space of history"[lFl: 52]) Agamben terms'infancy' '' Stated
otherrvise, Aganrben locates a pure experience ol language even amidst the condition
ol inlans-i.e., not having speech. The project is thus ultirnately one of realizing the
essentially derivative and hollorv character of our current legitimizing speech and, instead. entering into the experience of inl'ancy such that we might be able to achieve a
more originary ethical and political life.
At this point, a ne\.\'question arises: what is the ethical and political situation in
which humanity flnds itself such that it needs 1o achieve this experimentttm linguae?
Agamben has developed this issue throughout the 1990's and the turn ofthe millenu
nium in lr is Homo Sac er tnlogv and related works (1iom its initial stages rn The Coming Comnunto)'continuing uit th" *uy to The Open; Man and Animalt6), and it is at
this point that Foucault's thought becomes crucial for lrim. Foucault [1] helps to fashion the distinction tbr Ancient Gteece between zoa (as natual,tiological life) and bios
(as cultural 1il'e)rr. which Agamben discusses regarding Aristotle's thought (HS: 1-2),
and [2] creates the category of'biopolitics' which describes "tl're process by which' at
the threshold of the rr.todern era, natural lil-e begins to be included in the mechanisms
and calculations of State po$'er."(Hs: 3) In juxtaposing these two historical insights'
Agamben argues that lhe modern period is characterized by the complete biopolitical
regulation ofzoe. (HS: 4) This. in turn. actualizes the concealed potentiality ofthe classical political category of sovereignty (HS; 6) with the inevitable outcome being the

analysis of
cv (termed
I marginal-

.4gLtnhen \

tion between language as such and speech (which lirst initiates ethics and politics inso-

e ongrnary

lltyotyLt;g!.tn|slyy.ytL

tlcrdr

Iirrlio Linaudi

concentration camp as the now explicit rornos of modernity (i.e., that 'exceptionality'
has now. via regulation and mechanized organization, become the globalized societal
'rule' ).(HS: 166- 168) ln an epoch where fact (of life) and law (as political institution)
completely coincide in a "zone of indistinction"(HS: 9), the classical political categories (originally designating distinct and substantive political regions) are now compfetely subsumed: "terms such as sou'ereignn', right, nqtiotl, people, democracy, and
general ttill by now ret'er to a reality that no long has an)4bing to do with what these
concepts used to designate and those who continue to use these concepts uncritically
rt ,\gamben gi\ts an analogou5 articulalion 01 lhis thoughl in ,Sl.rntdr (\\'hich is. appropriatell. dedi_
10 Hcideggcr): The origirrar) nucleus of signification is neither in the signifier nor in the signified.
ncilher in the $riting nor in ihe voice. but in the fold oflhe presence on t\hich they are established: lhe
/ogrrr, which charactcrizcs the human as xnn logon c.ro, {living thing using latguage), is this fold that
trathers and cliridcs all thines in thc putlirrg logcthcr' ol prescnce."(sce Ciorgio Agamben. Stunza\ tli)td
Lnl I'h.ntu\ iinllt:ttrnCulrLue. lran5.. Ronald L. Ma inez (Minneapolis: Llniversity ofMinnesota Press.
l99l). 156 loriginallf published as Slrrrr:t Lu Purcttt ( il lAntusntt nelld Ll t ta oc.idenrdl. (Turin: Cuido
Finurdi. lq77 )l).
r
ln addnr,,rr ro /1,r,,,.\d.r, Sottt.ign Pover and B.rrc l.i/c, see Ciorgio Aganrben. Sl.?le of l.r.ep/ir)/r. trans. Kc\in Attcll (( hicago: Universil) ol Chicago Press. 1005) (originall) publishcd as t'r/o '/l
|rr r':rrrrk, [-]lrin: Bollali Bor ingh icn. 20{)lj). hcnc.lorlh as (Str.: pagc nunrber) tnd R.,r/?z rlt o / Aue(ltttit:
'' Ciiorgio Agemhcn. Iht QD ittg Co tunit\. rans.- Michacl tlardt (Minneapolis: Ilni.'ersity of Minfesola Press. 199-l) {originall} publishcd as La LoDntnita cht'r'rerrr IIunn: Cuido Einaudi. 19901). Hencecalcd

tbrth as ((

'

: page nunlbL'r).

Ciorgro Aganbelr-

Tb opLn \l t a*l

Prcss. l{)0,1J (origrnallt published as

.4ninta|. trans.. Kcvrn Altel (Stanford: Slanford tjniversily

20021i

t. tlr.tto l. uonn t l uninalc Ihrrn] Bollati Boringhieri'

llur!!l',rlh r\ (L r. I.ir( nIrnhcr)

\cc Nli.hel loue.rult. Ir, ttt\tott ol Se.trali^ llluntc t An lntrcdtdion lrans.. Robert

Hurley

York: !tftagt Books. 1980i. l'11 (originall,v- pubhshed as la Iolenri tlc sotrtu lParts: Editions Gallinrar(1. lq76l).

(N.\

.110

Jl[Rr\ BLR\\rrr\

literally do not know what they are talking about."(MWE: 109) It is l/l"r point. in particular, rvhich leads Agamben toward his antinomical slance wilh the conrplete corruption 01'our political categories, therc emergcs an exigency tix a radical break rvith
what came befbre in order to avoid an "unprecedented biopolitical catastrophe. "( H S:

concr
li)r th
betwr

188).

occ ul

ln the l'ace of conrplete and total biopoliticization-i.e.. nrcchanized genocide,

cnvironnrental destruction. and possiblc nuclear omnicide- -uhat could a philosophical-political response possibly look like'? Certainly all tbrms of what is conventionally
termed 'realism' (i.e.. the continued pragmatic usage of acccpted philosophicalpolitical categories) is not an option insothr as all the tools of realism have undergone
biopolitical corruption. Thus. the alternative riast be messianic i.e., it has to amount
to a conplete change of stance to*ards life, thus holding out lbr the possibility of a

appr(

lirndamenlul redemption or renewal (rctaining here the sense, even if in a secularized

fbrm, of 'making all things new again') of ethics and politics. Agamben tinds this politically redemptive impulse, interestingly enough, in Simone Weil's term'decreation'.
Weil's initial articulation ol this term might appear to militate against Agamben's
needs: "Decreation: to make something pass into the uncreated."lt However, as is perhaps obvious, Weil does not intend by this term complete annihilation, but rath.er something like an emptying of the exclusivist myth of sellhood and autonomy (whether understood in terms of individuals or communities): "We must take the t'eeling of being at
home into exile. We must be rooted in the absence of a place. To uproot oneself socially and vegetatively. To exile onesell from every earthly country . . . IB]y uprooting
oneself one seeks a greater realiry."(GG: 39) Agamben juxtaposes the category of 'decreation' with Heidegger's f/eigris (understood as the pure potentiality of language,
lhe experimentum linguae) and thus takes the return to the originary experience of language to be the messianic moment of creativity (as illustrated in his essay on "Bartleby"): "the creation that is now fulfilled is neither a re-creation nor an etemal repetition;
it is. rather, a decreation in which what happened and what did not happen are returned
to their originary unity. . . while what could not have been but was becomes indistinguishable from rvhat could have been but *as not."(P: 270)rq In short. by articulating
an ontological space lor the 'zone of indistinction' (which so plagues modern ethical

0ther

zatio
calls
occul
r.rps ur

an in
teleo
teleo

(itsel
tics.

histo
must
enler

ofm
edge

icont

activ
docs

terrn
atem

only
whal
the t

\\oel
medr

and political domains when it occurs as a result ofbiopolitical subsumption), Agamben

has
bestorved a redemptive quality upon the originary condition of infhncy and has

fi

thus [2] projected this originary condition into the space of hLrmanity's fulfillment.
Agamben discusses this fulfillment quite differently in diflerent texts. but whether it
gets articulated as pleasure ( I H: I 05 ), happiness ( MWE: 7), the capacity lbr "taking the
original measure of Ihuman-being's] dwelling in the present and recover[ing] each time
the meaning of his action"i". "rendering inoperative the machine which governs our

cons

[]

lls.

"wh
appr

her
the

beha

li

Simone Weil. Gtrui-r' ant! Gtu.e. tr:;ns.. Etrtma Cri{ lbrd and Mario \on dcr Ruhr (Nc$ York: Routledge. l99i)). 12 (originxlly published as La Pas.uteu| tt l./ grac.,LParis: Libraric PLON. l9.l7l). Hcncelbrlh as ((l(i: page nunrber).
D
One exemplary realm ol'lit'c *here such de-crcali\e creali\rty occurs ilj in lhe rerlm of art (see
(iiorgio Agamben. "Dilt'erence and Repetition: On Guy Debord s l:ilms.' in drr| Delor d .ln.l The Sit dtit)ni.\t Intetnutionul, ed.. Tom McDonough ((ambridge: Thc MIT Press. 2004). 3llt. l{enccli)rth as (DR:
page nunrberl
r" tiiorgro
Auanrhcn. fh,: ll,u lluhour (.,r/crr. trans.. Ceorgia Albe( (Slantbrd: Stanli)rd tjni\,ersity
Press. 1999), 1 1,1 (origrnrlly published as L tttmt sen:u tntkar,/., JQuodliber. 199-tl).

Mess

tlo()k
Book

Anti ,ni&l ,\lar\iunisnt:

)int. in parnrplete corbreak with
-ophe."(HS:

d genocide.
philosophirventionally
ilosophical-

undergone

s to amount

sibility of

secularized
rrds this po-

decreation'.
Agamben's

:r. as is perrather sorrsrvhetlrer unr o1'being at

I oneself soly uprooting

.gory of 'deof language.
ience of lan-

/ on "Bartleal repetition;
are returned
mes indistin-

/ articulaling
rdern ethical
n), Agamben
ancy and has

t'ulflllment.

ut u hether it
)r "taking the
rg] each tinre
governs our
le\\ \'orkr ltoul-

. I9l7l).

tlcnce-

lliofolilies.

'_ \!allcr llcn]anrin.

t-

ni\ crsitj

lir,rcr

.1ll

:' ln this sensc. lam in.sreenrenr \irh

Nlcssjanic I,('litics:

nlo(i

'Tlr.von

conceptioll of man"(0: 38), attempting to uard off"global civil war"(SE: 87). allowing
for the occurrence of lifeas"pure medialit)"'(MWE: I l6). participating in thc "struggle
between the State and the non-State (humanity)"(CC: 84). or "finding the path of another politics. of another body, of another u'ord"(MWE: l3ti) such I'ulfillnrent alxznrs
occurs as an archaic projection which exceeds the pale of the present and its current
appropriation of history: "[T]he arrival of posthistory necessarily entails the reactualization of the prehistorical threshold at which that border had been defined. Paradise
calls Eden back into question."(O: 2llrr Stated differently, Agamben's thinking always
occurs on the hither side of Benjaminian 'no\\Ltime' (Jet:t:eit) in his anticipating the
upsurgence of imminent futurity (even when such futurity simultancously amounts to
an immemorial past). Hence. while his thinking constitutes a challenge to conventional
teleological forms of thoughr. it remains (by virtue ol'its messianism) structured by a
teleological hope. One sees this clearly in Agamben's definition of 'nessianic history'
(itselfa paradoxical category): "Messianic history is defined by two major characteristics. First. it is a history ofsalvation: something must be saved. But it is also a final
history, an eschatological history, in which something musl be completed. judged. It
must happen here. but in another time: it musl leave chronology behind. but rvithout
entering some other world."(DR: 314) In other rvords, the enactment and culmination
of'messianic history is lrr the world. but not (t it. Therefore. while Agamben acknowledges that such messianic history is incalculable (a major aspect of Medieval Jeuish
iconoclasm), such incalculability would not necessarily hinder the waiting (and even
active preparation) for the arrival/onset of messianic history. In this uay, although it
does not simply belong to an ahistorical/atemporal realm.'the messianic' is (in the
terms ol Benjamin's Theologi< ol-Pr,tlitk al Frqgment) "a decisive category of its lthe
atemporal realm'sl quietest approach."-But if humanity is thus regulated by the biopolitical nontos of the camp, and the
only way to envision a change is by a wholesale rejection of the priority of larv as such,
what ways/tools exist which could possibly bring this change about? Put diff'erently (in
the terms refemed to by the second epigram), how can hunran thought move lrom its
woefully conditioned status to a moment of unconditionality'l What rvould serve as the
mcdiation between the two? For Agamben, this is the role that Benjamin's thought fulfills. In thesis l7 o1'Benjamin's "On the Concept o1'History". Bcnjamin states that
"Where thinking suddenly stops in a constellation pregnart with tensions. it gives that
corstellation a shock, by which it crystallizes into a monad. The historical materialist
approaches a historical object only whcre he encounters it as a nronad. ln this structure.
hc recognizes the indicatiou (Zeichen) ol'a Messianic standstill ol events i/nrc.!slani.schen Still.stcllung dts Gesc hehet?.!/. or. put diflbrently. a revolutionary chance in
the light lin thc suppressed pasl.":r Agamben understands this project o1''fighting on
bchalfol'the suppressed past'as ultinrately rcl'erring to thc originary'as such'ol'in-

as amounllng to dn ilntinonlicirl

rcclirnh as (l)R:

Agunthcn '; lncrytrakrti(n o/ B('njantin .r

Cuthcrine Milts a(rcllation ol Aganhcn s nessranic nronrent

the rcreh ol the la\\." Sec Calhcline Mills. Agamhcn s
Ahan(lorlnrert. nd Happ\ L-rii'. (i,,rrrl./r/)\ 5. l)ccenrbcr ll){).+.49.

'lilc li\cd belond

Pctcr Demct/. lrans. ldNon(i jcphcotl (Ne$ \orl: Schockc'n

n IIlut tn.ttitnknl
:' Wahcr Benianrin. tttMtlin,ltion\. ed Ilannrh Arendl. tflrns.. ilarr] Zohn lNr\ \'ork: Schocken
Ilo()ks. ft)()l). 16l'l{,-1: rrallslaii(nr nrodilicd. (originall\ publrshcd as ]lh ni dtit)nu .1u\g.\lihlk Sdril'
/r, 1 llrranllirrl irnr lvirin:Suhrkalnp Vcrlag. l()7il). llclecli)rlb as {1i pagc nunhcr).
Books.

1978i.IIl.

Rt,lltrtur'..d.-

(cssa) orirrnall\'tuhlished

lrHRlY BrR\\

ll2

Ir\

the
tbncy. This is nol to suggest that hun.unity can. fbr Agambcn. cr et sinrply dwell in
the
rnessiorigin as a pure ra,?c r-;;r. Horvever' insofhr as inlhncy (no' unclersto'tl as
unii trltilln-'.n, .,1'history) can lbrm and inlbrm our experiencc ol lil'e- it can r/ct t Eate
ou, port ,rnr*'.tt Agambin states tlut "For Benjamin. u hat is at issue is an intcrruption
of tiadition in whiih thc past is tirlfillsd and thereby broLrght to its end once and tbr
all.'1P: 153) In other rvords, Agamben invests Benlamin's thought with a radically antinomcial capacity which holdj out the possibility via historical rnaterialism and by
virtue of unlocking the concealetl pouer-of nlarginaliled histories of attuning people
:5
For Aganrben. phrlosophical Judaism- via a
to the decreated in-fancy of humani'nd
rnarginalized reading oi'passages trom the Talmud. Midrash. Kabbalah' and Shabbatai
Seui-is but one uiy to give expression and attunement to this antinontically rnessianic power of decreation.

II. Agamben's In\erprel(ttion ol Benjdmin's l'listot1'" Theses

What does it mean to suggest. as Agamben has. that Benjanlin's thought is 'animated
by a rigorously .ytt..uii" intention'? If one returns to Agambcn's statement cited
u6ou" u-nd, this time, lills in two ellipses (omitted simply tbr reasons of space)' hints of
an answer begin to emerge: "The more one analyzes Benjamin's thought' the more it
upp"urr-rorlrrry to ct common impre.tsion-...to be animated by a-rigorously systematic
intention /as Benianitt ctnce w'oti rtJ another philosopher u;uall.t' thougltt to he fi'agmentary, Friedrich Schtegell.(P: 155-156: my emphasis) The systematicity ot'Benjamin's intention is here placed in opposition to those conventional interpretations (i.e..
'common impressions') which read him as ultimately expressing (in form and contenl)
fragmentation. One might undentand the 'common impression' of fiagmentation in
Beijamin to refer to (among others) Theodor Adorno when he states that: "[Benjamin:sl philosophy of tiagmentation remained itself fragmentary. the victinl perhaps. of
a meth;d, the i'easibility of which in the medium ofthought must remain an opcn question."r6 What, tbr Agamben. is the rveakness of such a reading? Only a thinking rvhich

.as
such' stands a chance in breaking rvith the current order insois oriented toward thi
.as
such' constitutes the identi/itution of both origin and I'ultillment with ret'ar as the
spect to human life. And given that \\'hat is at issuc is an articulation and experience of
this 'identi4ring as such" systematicity would have to entail at least a certain amount

jbr

lior

precisely the t$'o characteristheorcticcrl elahort

(understood
as an anti- or nonmessianic
tics that fiagmentation denies. Fragmentation
quietism in the facc of biothan
mode of thirght/life) ',vould u*ount to nothing more
"lf
and
only locus on the moment
theme
we drop the messianic
political subsurnption:
(which
amounts to the same
absence
thereof
of foundation and origin--or even the
rvith
history as its infiand
signification
thingfwe are left u'iih empty, zero-degree'
in fhct, all
'lragmented
Benjamin'-and'
Adomo's
nite-def'erment."(TR: 104) Aence.

of consisteicfind

ti I

"*
nlembering

cttltuc'it1:

"rarticulating somelhing similar to \hat Lcland Dcladuranhye dcnotes in lhe Phrase

in
1)izr-iri{t
Po(cniial".
s
Agambcrl
Leland
Deladurrntaye.
see
which
neve:r
happcnerli.
thal

h.r.

summer 2000. .10.2. 18.

ljiu.h

u,I"","ot"d inlancy would. in tacl ltbr Agambcn). place thc \er\ categories

cisnr
scnt

a llc
such

this
Lanl

tend

tirctl
givc
t ion'

terr
'l'llc:
slanl

myl
synt

gutr
in tl
bec
u hi,

ore
lor,'

gorl
Bcn
gLn

'I ic"d

li()ll.
Thcs
cago

e\pl
chli(

rhr
relat
is el
Nlcs

lisht

l9t)

of

human'rnd
'non-human' in a zone ol indisiinction thus illustrating the Shabbal ol both annnaland man"(O:92)
(( unr16
Thcodor Adorno. -A ponail ol-walter Benjamin... in a.i.\rrr. rrJns.. Samcl and Shicrr! wcbef
bridge: The MII Press. 1990).:39 (originally published as ta ': .,en: K ttu tilik tortl Gtscll;chuli LBerlin:
Suhrkanlp. 19551). Henceli)rth as (Pr: page numbcr)

()L'\
'tcler

Mat
Unr

nli

lwell in

the

; the messizn decre0lt,

interruption
nce and fbr
adicaJly an-

ism and by
ning people

rism-via

d Shabbatar

:ally messi-

s 'animated
ement cited
ce ). hints of
the morc it
v systemalic

r to be .lj ugty of Benja-

tations ( i.e..
rnd contcnt)
nentation in

at: "[Benja. perhaps. ol'

r open ques-

nking u'hich
t order insorent with rexperience o1'

lain

anroLlnt

characteris,onmessianic
l'ace of bio-

thc momcnl

to the

sanre

as its infiI, in l'act. nll

thr phrasr "r'f

ol htman ln(l
'iO: 9l)

//.(r)ry'i lltcrlin:

ofAdorno's thinking renains (in the language ol the lirrguist Berlamin Lee Whorl) "
'teleologicalfly] inefltctive' ".(TR: 38) That Adorno uould not \ ie\\' this to be a criticism (but rather" precisely the point) of his thought is a topic well in excess ofthe present paper. Here. the Foint to be discerned is that Agambcn's 'systematic Benjanrin' is

a Benjamin full of potentiality. messianically directed. and one uho indicatcs the 'as
such' origin/fulli llment whichinvests thoughi, language and (ultinutely) lilc.rr To give
this interpretation to some of Benjamin's early Ronrantic-influenced u'ritings (e.9.. "On
Language as Such and on the Language of Man") is relatively unproblematic. To extend such an interpretation to his later historically materialist works (let alone the entireq ol-tsenjamin's corpus) is indeed a bold move.
*Hisbry"' thescs appears pronrising
On the face of it. Agamben's reading of the
given Benjamin's continued usage ofthe terms messianic' (and. similarly. 'redempiion'.1. Hoivever. the mere ris,rgc of terms (pa('c Jacob Taubesr*) cannot. b)' itsell'determinc ho$ to interpret a philosopher's thought. If Benjamin equates (in thesis l7)
'messianic' uith 'revolutionary chance', then ever)4hing hinges Ltpon hou'one understands 'revolution'-i.e .. the relation olthe 'now-time' 1tl one's past. ll I am correst in
my suggestion that .Agamben understands the category ol"the past' in the light ol'his
synthesis of Heidegger's Er?lgl?is (understood in the nranner ol'lhe e\pcrientun litlguae) and Weil's'decrcation'. then 'revolution' u'ould amount to a break with history
in the fbrm of a re-nev-ittg return lo an immemorial past. Hence, 'rerolution' rvould
be cast in a distinctly antinomical light. This is, to be sure, onc decisive manner in
which to understand'revolution': whether it is the manner in which thinkels like Marx.
or even Paul, understood it is a subject still $orthy ofquestion.:'It does. houever. allow Agamben the requisite space in order to develop an antinomically structured category ol-'messianic' within the context of Benjarrin's thought. Dillerently stated. the
Benjaminian 'suppressed past' refers (fbr Agamben) io the originary experience of'language as sacfi. ln this case, the category'messianic' would suggest not merely a soclal

t At indicatccl nbovc. Adomo is not the onll interprcl.r ol Benjnnrirr to enphasis liagrnentali(rn. Rolf
Tiedemann holds that Benjanrin's 'llistory" thcses rarel) pernil a complctell eonsi\tent inlcrprela'fhc
tion._(scc Roll_ Iicdemann. Historical Malerirlrsnr Or I'olrtical \4cssianrsnr'l An lnlerprclalion Ol
The.es On The ( oncepl ol Histo(.\". it:' Bctti.uitin Phiir'\o t.t .1!\1l1ttk '. Hi'tu|.t. ed.. (jrD Smith lChi'
cago: ttnirersin ol Chicag(i Press. lq89l). l0-1. Similarl!. according to Rrincr Rochlil,/. Bcnjarrin com
posed thc "Hislorv thcscs so as to scc clearly into his own thnking. hut the) did not ycl allow him lo
explarn his thought to others. Nor can the) ser\c as a basis lbr a lhcorctical elaboralion. (see Raillcr llochlit./. Thr Dtsukhuntnttir Ol .1fl: 7fu Phih*t1thr Ol llulkt Be,t,r n. tra[s.. Janc N'laric Todd l\c\
\ urk Thc auilri'rd Prc\,. l'rt,,'1. llh)
" \\ ith rc\necr Lo Bcn;.rnrrr'' first
it hi; TlntlogiL, -l\tliliLdl Itdgtunt stirlirtg lhal '()nl)
'cnlencc
lhc \4cssiih hinrsclf consunrmales all historr. rr lhe sensc thal hc llore redccrns. conrplelcs- crcrlL': its
relatior lo the McssiaIic . Trubcs maLcs the lbll(tr\rng (lirrl\ rniornrill)conrnrcnt: It'lirsl ol all. onc lhing
-thc politicill. no neulrrlir trt}n. hLrt lhe
rs clcur: Thcre is a Messiah. No shnl(mlsos lil.rc lhc mcssrarrc.
Mcssiah \! c h r r c t o be c lcu r about lhis. Nol thrl \e .rre'derling hcrc t\ith a (hri\li.rn Mcssiah. bul il docs
sa,r:rhc \1cs'iuh. No cloud\ hliqhlcnmcnl or Ilonranlic ncutrali,/rliorr."(scc.lircob Taub,:s. fh( h)lili(dl
Thcohryt {)[ I'tul. tr.rns.. IXna ]lollandcr (Slanli)rd: Slinli'rd (lni\ersrl\ Prc\(. lo0{). ?l roriginalll publishcd as /)rc hlur fu "l ht:t)h'ri! ,l( r /'rrrrlrrr cds.. Alcidr ancl J.rn Assrrrir|- ct:rl l\\ilhclrn Fink Vcrlag.
l99ll). ll(N\c\er. eren in Lhis prcsunrabll cleirr corrlc\1. lleatrng tlcrt.lmin s :litlcmcnl \\ilh an itrnic ot'
.,'rrJitr.'rrrl t,'rrr' rlrr:rrn. rr rcrr' n.''.ihrlitr
t'Iix un inrcre.trng discrrssion in \upporl ol undcrslrnding r!\olLrtion u\ a lorrn ot rcpelilion. se.

Lnrrersrrr Prcss. l0(Xr). 159-l(':. l1)r,\garrhcn. repetitiorr ill$ays

anlir,'rr1r!rll\ r!\\riinic tcll t)rlltrcncc rrrd Itcpclilion: {)rr(,o\

a11,,$s

I)ch()rd

lar lhr llnmarrerl

\ Irihrrs

Lrpsurgc

ol lhc

3t4

.'r

ll rr

l]r

R\s r\

.utd politicul reconliguration. bLrt rather a conrplete change ol stance b\ard lil'c rnd
the promise ofa fundamental renerval (iusolar as hutnanity would brcak rvith the rle-

rivative. and open a path to an originary. experience of languaqc). Put ditf'crcntly.

'nressianic' ( tbr Aganrben) re fbrs to an ulologicul rcgisler. This understanding of 'the
past'as an immemorial 'as such' is precisely uhcre the iconoclastic intcrprctation of
the "tlistorv" thcscs s ill direrge liom Agambcn's o$'n interpretation.

Agamben's interpretation of"On the Concept ofllistory" fbcuses on theses l. 3,

5 IJ.9. l4 and lll. The rernainder ol'this scction will comprise a discussion ofAgamben's antinomically messianic interpretation ol these theses.
Benjarnin sets the stakcs vcry high in thesis 2 uhcn hc states that "our image of
happiness is indissolubly bound up u ith the image ol redemption. The same applies to
our vieu ol the past, u,hich is the conccrn of history. The pasl carries with it a secret
lheimli< hen index by rvhich it is relerrcd to rcdemption . . . Like cvery generation that
preceded us. we have been endowed with a rr,crrk messianic power, a power to which
our past has a claim."(l: 254; translation modified) Agambcn tlrst notes that the word
Erlosung (redenption) is the term which Luther uses (in his translation of the New
Testament) to render the Pauline.rpoAtrosi.r (TR: l.+4). thus suggesting a hitherto unattended to connection betlveen Benjamin's thought and Paul's. Redemption. here. is the
category which functions. tbr Agamben. as the gravitational center of Benjamin's
views regarding the philosophy of history.(P: 139) Hence, despite his materialism,
Benjamin is articulating a messianic impulse so much so. in t'act, that (according to
Agamben) Benjamin's thought can understand human happiness only insofar as such
happiness has reckoned u,ith its being bound to the idea of redemption.(P: l5l) And
such historical redemption is itself intimately bound up with (in fact, inseparable from)
the capacity lor'citability'-i.e., the ability to "tear rhe past tiom its context, destroying it. in order to return it, transfigured to its origin."(P: 152) Thus, the relation ofhistorical materialism to the past is purely antinomical: the task (qua redenrptive citability) is to tear thc 'as such' of the past from its encrustation in history so that it might be
returned to us anew (and so that we might retum ane$ to inlbncy). Here. the traditional
nomic aspect of history is understood as old and constricting, while the 'origin' the
immemorial past of language as such-remains (qua messianic redemption) ever new.
Tradition, in other rvords, is valuable orr11, insofar as it can "lead fthe past] to its decline
in a context in r.r'hich past and present, content ol transmission and act ot' transmiss ion,
rvhat is unique and uhat is repeatable are rvholly identified."(P: 153) Redemption, for
Agamben's Benjamin, is not a pure and sirnple liquidation of the past (P: 154)-it is,
father, its decreation. Agamben notes that. in Ihe Harulexemplar.of thesis 2. the term
'weak' (in 'weak messianic power') is given extra emphasis. and this (for Agamben)
provides the key both for ( | ) understanding how this decreative capacity happens and
tbr (?) pror,iding Benjanrin's o\^n texr \rirh citability. Like Paul (in Corinthians l2: 9l0), Benjamin is refening to a capacity or power which "f'ulfills itsell' in its weakness."(TR: 140)Again. Luther's translation fbr
in Paul conesponds to Ben",veakness'
jamin's-sc/rruche. (TR: 140) Our authentic relation
to the past is not one ol simple
and direct progress towards firlfillment (which would be one way ol' understanding a
'strong' messianic power) but, instead, that of rcleasing (via decreation) the possibilities of the e.tpetimentu llngrrrc concealed in the inrmenrorial past. [D this way,
Agan.rben believes that it is ultimately Paul who both renders Bcnjarnin's text cit-

blt

l'u

rlral
Llntr

arr
clec

citz
the
not

-fo

the

sit
otli
m(

mt
ue

Hr
be

on
A1

or
SC

m
tn,
s/,

tir

ni
st
SI

II
o
n
I

r
il

ll5
rd life and
irh the delifferently,
ing ot' '1he
'retation

ol

heses 2, 3"

of AgamLr

image

of

: applies to

it a secret
rration that
:r to which
rt the word
rf the New
herto unathere, is the

3cnjamin's
ralerialism.
:cording to

far as such

: l5l)

And
rable from)
xt, destroy-

tion of his:ive citabilit might be

) traditional

'rigin'-the

) ever new.
) its decline
lnsmission,
rnption. fbr

15,1)r-ir is,
2. the term
Agamben)
rappens and
rians l2: 9-

n its weak'nds to llen-

able/intelligible (and vice versa), and who functions as the 'theological hunchback'
who guides the puppet 'historical materialism' (in thesis I ).(TR: l4l ) Hence, historical
materialism is. at bottom, intimately connected with a Pauline trajectory (which amounls to being, for Agamben, antinomically messianic).

Civen that (tbr Agamben's Benjamin) humankind's decreative retum to the e.{peimentLtm linguae happens via citability, thesis 3 gains enormous significance: "only
a redeemed mankind receives the fullness of its past which is to say, only for a redeemed mankind has its past become citable in all its moments."(l: 254) For Agamben,
citability (i.e., received fullness olthe past) equals possession ofthe past.(P: l5l) Only
then will hurnankind be "tluly redeemed and truly saved."(P: l5l) Possession. here' is
not simply reducible to intelligibility (at least not in its conventionally passive sense).
To be in possession of a past means to be able to experience the potency contained in
the past. Hence, citability is a lnrd ol intelligibility, but one which is, in its very intelligibli occurrence, creative. Put difl'erently. Agamben's Benjamin is attempting to hold
out a promise for a rvay of lile in which humanity's constructive capacities are not immobilized. Decreating anew amounts to intelligible construction which occurs in/as the
messianic reception of humanity's past: "what is saved is what never was. something
new. This is the sense ofthe 'transfltguration' that takes place in the origin."(P: 158)
Humanify's being in full possession of its past amounts to the complete coincidence
between the actuality olhumanity and the originary potency ofinfancy (P: 159)
If citability is a (or even lh4 coruete expression of messianic decreation, then
one has the right to inquire into how exactly such citabilityheception can occur. For
Agamben, Benjamin begins to answer this question in thesis 5:"The past can be seized
only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never
seen again."([: 255) As stated earlier, the category ol'the past', for Agamben's Benjamin, refers to the originarily immemorial experience of language as such-the erperlmentun linEiuae. Given that this immemorial past does not simply an.rount to a rurc
s/drJ but, rather, an occurrence in the world (if not completely o/ it). there is a sense in
which the past remains irredeemable (for Agamben)-i e., "[w]at cannot be saved is
r,r'hat was"iP; 158) However. the image of the past brings about redemptive recognition idat the very heart ofthe unredeemable.( P: 157) Redemption. experiential recognition of the potency ol language, would thus coincide with language in its actual instantiation. In more traditional terminology, one might say that such coincidence constitutes a fbrm of incamation i.e.. it is this disclosure ofthe redeerning potenlial in the
unredeemed actual which constitutes the messianic 'weakness' of Agamben's Benjamin. "Bild finrage] thus encon']passes, for Benjamin, all things (meaning all objects,
u'orks of an, te)its, records or documents) wherein an instant of the past ard an instant
of the present are united in a L-onstellatjon where the present is able to recognize the

meaning of the past and thc past therefore finds its meaning and fulfillment."(TR:
I42)r'r This unity (or, in Benjamin's terms'standstill') olthe dialectical image resembles (according to Aganlben) the 'typological relation' in Paul.(TR: 142) Similarly.

,e o1' sirnple

:rstanding a
re possibili-

n this way.
r's text cit-

l" I',r"r"rtingly. Agamben s mcssianic interprelati(m ol this lbesis tirlds unexPcclcd supporl nr Jiirgell
llaberutas o\n irrtcrprctali,)n. $hich errphcsizcs this coinciclerrcc as a conrnrunicalivc conlc\t ol a univcr'
srl hislorical soli<lariry.l.tiirgcn llabennas. ?J?(, PhilosothiLul I-)iscorttt d .\h Lr'rit.t: Tttrl\'( LedMe\.
trans.. Frederick c. l-a*renc:e [t-anrbridgc: The MII-Press. 1990]. l5 (originallr published as De''lii'rs'rphi:thr l)rskurt Lltr \h"tLr ( 7,\\ill Iir-lr.\rrg.rI Ifranklirrt arrr N4ain: SuhrLanrp Verlag l9li5]l

-l

16

J|

rRl Y IJr

k\\

rl L\

Aganrbcn notcs that thc ljrst sentence ol thcsis 5 (i.c.. the true in.ragc ol'thc last llees
by lnright bc a relcrcnce to (orinthians 7: il.(l-R: l.l2)Oncc again. the rnessianic

cnd

thnrst ol'Benjarlin's thougirt is decrcationally correlatcd u,i1h the texts ul'Paul.

What. concrctcly, does the rccognition o1'this clccreatir'c recognition ot the past
accomplishl In thesis E. Benjanrin notes that "The traclition ol the suppresscd teaches
us lhat the 'state ol'cmergency' in which we lire is not the cxccption but the rule. We

thc

rlust attain to a conception ol'history that is in keeping u'ith this insight . . . lllt is our
task to brirrg abotl u reul .,;tutc of entergetr'.t, and this
inrprovc orrr position in the
stluggle against Fascisnr."(l: 257: cnrphasis mine) According to Agamben. Ilenjamin
here establishcs a rclation betucen tlte conccpt ol messianic tirne'(i.c.. the contractioll
of lime disclosed to humanity during a moment ol crisis f-l R: 63-651) and "a juridical
catcgory belong[ing] to the sphere of public las.'11,: l6tl) ln rhis accomplishmenr,
Bcnjamin conlionts the realm oflarv as such with the category ol"the rncssianic' ,i.e.,

cnrp

rill

he "brings a genuine messianic tradirion to the most e\trcmc point ol its deiclopnrent."(P: 162) In olher rvords. in heightening the tension bctween law as such and 'the
messianic'. Bcnjamin adrances the project (through the creation olmarginalized histories.1 of bringing about a 'real state of emergency' in the lbrm ol'an antinotnical conlrontation with the hope ol interrupting th.' priority of legality. Agarnben states that,
"We can compare the siruation ol our time to that of a petritied or paralyzed messianism that, like all messianisrns. nullifies thc law, but then maintains it as rhc Nothing of
Revclation in a perpetual and interminable state of cxception."(P: l7l)The relation
bet*een messianism and legality is in a suspended state calling lbr a firll and decisive
conliontation which might provide. via Benjamin's thought. an opening lbr decreative
infbncy. Not surprisingly. for Agamben, "Only in this context do Benjamin's theses
acquire their proper meaning"(P: l7l; insolar as "[t]his paradigm [i.e., the'state of
exception'l is the only way in uhich one can conceiye something like an eskhoton
that is. something that belongs to historical time and its la* and. irt thc same time, puts
an end to it."(P: 174) The heightening olthe confiontation betucen lau'and messianisrn (via the dialectical image) thus holds out. firr Agamben, the very real possibility of
disclosing the emptiness ollaw as such.
There has becn an extended dcbate surrounding thesis 9 (Benjamin's most cclebrated thesis) concerning the possible optimism or pessimism contained in the figure of
the angel ol history who "[w]here rve perceive a chain of events. . . . sees one single
catastrophe u,hich keeps piling u.reckage upon $reckage".(l: 257)The notable pessinristic reading {according to Agamben) is Gershom Scholem's "Walter Benjamin and
His Angcl". " Agarnben. rn sharp contrast, holds that the li,sure of thc angel is rather
"the cipher by which Ilenjamin registered what rvas for him humankind's most difllcult
historical task and rnost perf'ect experience of happincss. "( P: 14ti) ln the light of catastrophic attenlpts at making 'historical progrcss'. which have only scrved to alienate
humanity fronr its or.iginary infbncy. the angel is thc figure (i.e.. the dialectical image)
rvhich 1in manif-esring recognition ol'the situation) illustrates the need fbr an historical
rupture and mcssianic re-integratior: "thc angcl is tlre originary imagc in the Iikcness
ofrvhich man is crc'ated arrd. at the same time. the consunlnation ofthc historical totality ol r.'xistence tllat is accomplished on the last day. such that in its ligure origin and

ii lun.J"d
in
York

(iershonr Scholcm.

Schocken Books. 1976). l9ij-l-16.

(r, .t.!t\

dn.t J.tubnt ar

{iivr.

ed.. \\emcr L)3nDh:ru\cr (New

alstt

ol
n't

p
i,it

lled
Plis,
c

irle

l6l

Bcn

cita
rela
hist

figr
del:
ciru

ing
!^Of

n0t
rvh
on(
me

the

tor
tne
bal

tin
'ic
lic

l'r
:f
l-.

re last flees

messianic

rul.

()f the past

sed teaches
he rule. We

. []t is our
;ition in thc
r, Benjamin
contraction
"a juridical
nplishment,

ianic'-i.e..
ts developrch and 'the
Llized histo-

;rnical constates that,

ed messian-

Nothing of

-he relation
.nd decisive

r decreative

rin's theses
he'state of
esklrcton-e time, puts
rd messian-

ossibility of

i most celehe figure

ol

end coincide. Likewise, the reduction to the origin that takes place in redenption is
also the consummation of historical totality."(P: 157) Differently stated. the angel is
the image of tlre coincidence o1'origin and telos which. in recognizing the catastrophe
01'progress, simultaneously consliiutes an altenratiYc, Far from being a sign of pessimism. then. the angel (for Agamben's Benjamin) is a sign ol'ultimate hope
Thesis l4 ("History is the object whose place is formed not in honrogeneous,
empty time. but in that which is tilled by lhe now [Jet.t.eit]."11: 261; ranslation modifiedl) and thesis I 8 ("The now [Jetztzeit], which, as a model of messianic time comprises a monstrous fungeheuerenl abridgment of the entire history of hurnanity, coincides exactly with the figLrre which the hislory of mankind makes in the universe."Il:
263: translation nrodified]) bring home, for Agamben. the ultimate connection between
Benjamin and Paul. Agamben underslands the BenJaminidn Jct:t:eit as alnountin[: lo a
citation of the Pauline ho nyn kotro.s.\Tk l4J1'--i.c.. cyclrcal time. Similarly, the
relation between the Jelztzeit as a nrodel of messianic time and the 'figure \1hich the
history of hun.ranity makes in the universe' is itsel/ (on Agamben's terms) a refiguration ofPaul's intertwining of rypos and anakephaloiosis (recapitulation; u'hich
define messianic time.(TR: 142) The Messiah's anival is incalculable precisely because an) Jel:tzeil might constitute the moment of such a return. The possible coinciding with decreative int'ancy is rot subject to prediction but. instead, only to persevering
comportment attuned to the crisis in which we live.
But while Agamben readily acknowledges that thc messianic retu to irlancy is
not calculable, his acknowledgement in no way amounts to an iconoclastic impulse; for
while there can be no prediction, there can still be pteparation (however minimally
one construes this term) via bringing about a 'real state of emergency' in the form of
messianic-legaiistic confrontation. In rejecting modern teleological models ol history,
the incalculability of the messianic constitutes, for Agamben- a real opposition to history. authority, and law. By interpreting'the past' (in Benjamin's thinking) as an immemorial repository of language as such in its originary potency, Agambcn counterbalances legality willl a positive vision of what might be. ln this sense^ Agamben's optimism is the reverse-side of Scholem's alleged pessimism. Insofar as the category of
'iconoclasm' breaks with the category of'as such'. it can also be understood to diverge
from the opposition betueen optimisur/pessimisrn (hope/despair).

r one single

table pessirnjamin and

Iel is rather
ost dilflcult
rht of catasto alienate
tical image)

M. Totrards an lconoclastit Inlerprelation ttf lhe "Histrnt"

Theses

The materialist longing to grasp thc natter aims al the oppositc [ol'the idea]ist]: it is only in
the absence of images that the f'ull object could be thouBht. Such absence of images cotrlerges with thc theological ban on images. Materialism secularized thc ban bl not penllitting ubpia to bc posiLirely imagined; this is the content ol'iN n.gu,iti,!
,n.,non, ouurno,,

rn hislorical

:he likeness

orical total-

: origin and

ofthis vie$. cl. l\lichacl Lii}y. ! it( {laml. Rrdding hi t?r Btlliutnn s Ou ttu Crut'
urn!'r (Ne\\ Yorkl Vlrrso. 2005.1:l'1n l6l (originall) publishes 1s ,';,c/Buidnin. .4\ttti\r(nrnt d inrctklic lParis Pre\ses Unitersilaires de l:larrcc. 20illll l{encefbrth as (FAi
': For

a reicclion

Lel ol tii\td.\ trans. (hris l

pagc nurnber)

" Theodor Adorno. Nerzti\r Ditllt'ttt.s. lrins.. F.. [']. Ashor (Ne$ York: (ontirrutrm Books.200l).
l{)?: translxtion modiliecl (orrgrnall,r pubhshed as \..totli| l)idl?ktik lFr.rnklirfl am Maini Suhrkamp
l99ll)

.118

.L r I.Rl

\ B[R\'ltl\

The nraturity ol . . . lalc rvotks . . . docs not rcscurblc thc kind one linds irr tiirit lhe.v- are,
lbr thc llx)st pan. not round. bttl lirro$cd. crctt rarauecl De\oid oi sweclness' hitlcr and
spiny. they do not surrcnder lhcnrsclres to mtrc dclcctirtion . . . I llhcl shott ntorc traccs of

hist.rl

than tlfgro*

th

cli
tlr'
clr

lrr

'hcodor.\donro'j

If sonrconc pror.luces "coLtntcrrc\1)luti(nlary" rr ritings, . . . shoulcl hc llso cxprcssll plirce

theln rt thc disposal ol the countcrre\oluliorl.'Slrotrld hc nol ralher. denature thcn. like
ethyl tlcohol. and make them dellniti\cl)'and rcliabll unusublc li)r th. counlene\ olution at
the risk that no one rvill br-'able lo usc theml Can one cvcr bc too clearly distinguished
liom the pronounccmcnts and the langtnge ol peoplc *hom one learns nore and morc to
avoid in lilel
\\ aher llentanrin to Gebhom Scholcor. Apnl llj
The conventional interpretation conceming iconoclasm. u hen it is not simply understood as the pure content of a larv, holds thal the ban on gira!en images titnctions as a
way in which communal power becrrmes historically consolidated in Judaism (i.e., via
a polemical act of se lf detinition )." On this basis. Judaic iconoclasm gets challenged in
one of two ways: either. so the argument goes, the original ban on graven images (as it
is fbrmulated in the Hebrew Scriplures and interpreted by the Talmudic rabbis) does

not refer to representation bLrt specifically k) idolatry (in the litelat sense).] or is

lri

II
pr

ol

rl
rl
tl
ir
rl
II
el

symptom of something llke t'alse consciousness insofar as later Jewish thinken put
forth clear and definite aesthetic criteria (thus. in rr certuin sense, transgressing against
their own prohibition).r8
lf reflections upon iconoclasm $ere to end at this point. one might counter the
above interpretation quite easily in a manner sympathetic to Aganrben's thought: this
ban, which separates language and image.tiom thing\. conceals the linguistic fhct
(about which some have made a great d!'al'-) thar the Hebre* $ord ddt4r mcans both

rl
o
r'
p

r
t
s

'' Theodor '\,lonx,. _Lrtc Style in Elcclho\cr. 1r0ns.- Susan H. Cillespic. in Theodor Adomo rlt.ld-vs
On lhljiL, ed.. Richard Lepper! ( B.rkley: Uni\crsiiy ol Catili)rnia Prcss. 2(X)l ). i6.1.
'5 Contained in Ccrshorn Scholcm. tt;/r?r- Bc,/i/l] nin. Tht Storr O/ .1 liicn.l\hQ,lrans.. llarry Zohn
(No\ \'orki \en York Revic's Oa Books. 100-]). :91. (orieinirll\ pLrblishcd as llalret &njLttnin ,lie Ge'
\Lhi.11te 4net Ii L\tnLlsr,a/i l!rranktln anr Main: Suhrkrmp Vcrlag. :001 l).
16
t l.. lan Assrran. Relit:hn an C tttrat lt?nru'\' Ten Stu.li.:\. t.ans.. Rodnc) Li\ingstone (Stanlbrd:
Sranldrd Uni\,ersity Prcss, l(X)6). 77-80 {originall)- published as Rc/4qrr,r unl kulrurells Gedtichrnis lunn'
.hcn: Verl.r! C H. Bc(l oHC.:0001).
' Ctl. Jcan-Luc \Jnc!. fr. nr'unJ ol tlr /nrd.gr', trans.. Jell Fort (\e\\ \-ork: lirrdhnm Uni\crsily
Press.l0{)5).

i0.

n ll,tliewtl ant llolern.lflirnuriotts and Dcnia^ dtheIisual

(Princetonr Princclon University Prcss.l0{)0). I1 should he nolrd that this is not Bland s intcnlion. bul mere_
l] rn uninrendctj inl.rcncc to shich his book ur)lanunrlclr- lcDds itscll. Illand s projcct rdopts th(j Doble
airl ofrcscuing Jc$ish philosophl,rabbilric !hought from lht problcnrLrlic clairn lhal JLrdaism (bJ \irtue of
lhe hnn on gra\en inra{es) conslilures a cultural rcgrcssion ht den\ing \isual aesthetics. llouever. Rland
does nol challengc lhe rery assumplion upon $hich this clarn rsts i.e.. that thc ban,'n grarcn rmaues is
not reducible sinply to the realm ol comfi ndnrenrsi prohibirions. This is. rdmittcdly. bcyond tbe intcnt oJ'
BhnJ . r'lheru r.c prr,\,,r'.rt rr .rnri tlne rr,'rk.
'"CL, Suson A. llrndclrnLrn. I/r. S/,rt'r i Ol \h:Ls: Tht l:nrcrf<u <.'Ol tl,thhtni. t trrJ,entti(tt l llol'
e)n Li(iut1 //,.,rr1 (Albany: SUNY Picss. l9)31). and \4arlenc Za i,l,et. The I-nthaught Deht: tleitlL'gget
unl the Hcht.tiL fleritage. trans., tlcttina Ucrgo (Sttnli)rd: Slanlbrd Uni\ersit) Press.:(106).-ll'50 (origi
nirlly publishcd as 1-.r /)drl., nrperr(,(, lParis: Ldirions du Scuil. 19901)
'*Ctl.KaloranP. Itlantl.The.t e:it.J

lttintnru
. They are.
and

. bitter

re traccs

of

essly placc

lhem, like

:\olution

at

stinguished
nd more to
rm-

April

17.

l9l lri

lly

under-

ltions as a
n (i.e.. via
,llenged in
ages (as it

bbis)

does

,:t or is a
inkers put
ng against
ounter the

rught: this

uistic fact
leans both

lorno [.\!dl r
Harr) Zohn
ne (Stanlbrd:
;r'r1,ra lMiin-

Lin ir

crsitl

pls thc noble

{b\ \ i[uc of
scvcr'. Bland
ven irnagcs is
Ithc irrtent ol

,i-l-5{) (origi

lle;;iruti.snr; .lganhan s lrtterl)retdtion

(l Bctli.tnlitl s Histrt r Tfus,:s

319

'word' and 'thing', thus indicating the originary coincidence/unity ol all being. lconoclasm, thus, is relegated to the status of a reactile nrode o1'canonizing an exclusivist
theological-political structure. lt is in this sense that Agamberr wishes to think the very
category of 'b:ln' as both thc mark of sovcreignty and that which designates exclusiorl
from the comrnunitl.lHS: 28)1" To hold this vieu. however. is to ignore the prolbund
translbrmation in the medieval period (centering around the thought of Mairnonides)
which understands such iconoclasnr-given the unity of'word' and 'thing in davrli.
precisel| as d (ritique ol theologicul-politi(ql representation with retpad ro,li|inin.rl
Hence, the semantic unity contained in dayar as \'!ell as thc f'undam!'ntal thrust ofthc
prohibition now assurnes the primarrly critital I'unction olnraking maniLst the limits
of human reason with respect to knowledgc or beliel'claims about the divine and about
the coming ot'the Messiah. This critical tunction ol' iconoclasm can be traced through
the modem era up until our own time (l shall provide a briel'version ofthis marginalized tradition in the Conclusion). In its nost recent instantiation, iconoclasm nlanilests
itsell'as a critical limit placed upon ahistorical messianic/utopian rnisappropriation ol
the past (understood herc not as an immaterial 'as such' but rather as an expression of
the generation and corruption 01' nonidentity{), Vicwed in this light. the first and third
epigrams of the present section coincide in (l) their suspicion to\\'ards utopian modes
of thinking and (21 their desire to actualize this suspicion by attempting to shon circuit
such utopian misappropriations. This coincidence, in turn. allorvs onc to synonymously
articulate Benjamin's tlleses through the Adornian category of'late style' (indicated in
the second epigram). Benjamin's theses are not openings to\\'ards a messianic union of
origin and end. but rather 'denatured' (i.e., non-appropriable, 'the feasibility of which
remains an open question'). 'spiny' traces ol the caesura between the history which
produced them and the (perhaps inevitable) utopian/messianic longings which ultimately afflict humans. A synonym for this'late style' which discloses such a'denatured caesura' is iconoclasm: such iconoclasm is present in Benjamin's "History" theses not simply as an 'anti-representational representation' (\'hich, qua representational
would be 'idolatrous'), but as a concrete aspect of the text's very enactment. Difl'erently stated, Benjamin's "History" theses amount to an exemplary instance ol'negative
dialectics'decades befbre Adorno composed his seminal uork ofthe same nanle.
Given this iconoclastic impulse in Benjamin's text. its fragmentary quality expresses neither (l ) simple 'liagmentation fbr fragnrentation's sake' (i.c., fragnentatiorl
cs srtll nor (2) a positive argument against messianism luhich u'ould itself merely
constitute the reverse side of messianism). Insteucl, Benjamin s text o'ititall.t negates
all pQsitive cluims e.Jvo('ating dnr contant hut,ing to do wilh tlcssiqnisrtt. Adorno
fiakes the point in lhe lbllowing manner: "Ber!amin overexposes . . . objects lbr the
sake of thc hidden contours u hich one day. in thc state of reconciliation. u,ill becorrc
evidcnt. but in so doing hc rcveals the chasnr separating that day and lil'e as it is."(Pr:
'" As Agarnbdr notcs. h( takcs up thi:, thought lionr J('an'Luc Nanc\'s discussiur ol baD as anordr.a
prescription. a dc'crcc. a penrisslol- antl thc po\\'cr tha! hold\ lhcsc lieely at its disposrl. {see Jern-Luc Nanct. lhcltrtthT,, l\r\ ,\ lr ns.BnallIlolnles.cl.dl lstanlind: Slanli]rd University l)ress. l99l J.,+.1-4.{).
' l-hc nflnr( (\.rlnplc ol lhr\ i. B(r,k l ol \4rirnonidas' CuiJ. d th /1,,7,/dr.!/ irrs(ilar as rl \\'slemiiticall\ \ho$\ thc cltLf\ocrlrl\ ol Scripturill lcrnts u\cd lo relcr to Cod.

" t t:. ,qleranrtrr (larcia I)iitlnrann. tht, ,\Lnt,,tt {)l Thnghr. .4n t.\\o.\ 0r llL,itlrygtr .ltnt lthrtto.
trun\.. Nichol,rs $rlkcr (Nlj\ York: ( ontinuunr Uooks. llilJ2)- E6-li7 (origin0lh puhlishcd as l)ar
GuLtltrnrtht l), k,)t\ l.r\tuhiiht lhdt::!(t rnl . t,D|, (\uhrlanrp

Verlag. l9()1)

lr

-120

l.li)

rRr

Br R\\ ll

r\

In his critical dcplol'ment c,l terrns such as rncssirnic' rnd 'r'cdenrption'. Bcnja-

nril's'late-stlle'thcses disclose the iconotlastic cacsura $hich alrvavs alreadv

scpa-

latcs oLrr dcsire 1o achieve reconciliation and rcality. llence. any ttsagc ol'nrcssianic
language in Bcnjarrin. I claim. must always be hcard conditionally (i.c., as relcrring to
the revolutionary c|pacity ol'past hisk)r-v) or rronically. Dil'1.:rcntly statc-ti. uhere
Agamben's nrcssilnic Bcnjarrin !.\prcsscs ueuning-firl ht'litl, tha iconoclastic Bcnjanrin expresses,rgirrrl r. l-hercfore. lhe'unit)'of llenjalrin's lirgmentar] slitirrc is neither discursivc nor intellcctual. but rather lbxeJirl; sucl'r 'unily'occr.us as the cfl'cct of
an allcctire gravitational pull via the catcsorv ol iconoclasm'.
It is the purpose ol-this section to hagitl to shor how this interpretation better rcsonates u'ith the rnovernent ot Bcnjamin's "History" theses. Giren thc linritations of
this paper. only alentents of an iconoclastic interprc'tation ol"'On The ('oncept o1'History'can be gircn. I *ill proride thcse elements ria a re-reading ofthe theses rvhich
lbrrn the basis lor Aganrben's interpretation.rl
Any attempt at presenting clements of an iconoclastic interpretation ol'Benjarnin's text uould have to begin with the very titlc olthe theses-"On the Concepl of
History" which. in fact, nukes pure citability extremely problenratic. The more fbmous title ot the text. "Theses on the Philosophy ol History" was a subsequent accretion given to thc text by "lhe members of the Institute fbr Social Research, who pubIishecl it fbr the llrst time in I943, in the United States."* The lbrm of the text clearly
refers to Marx's lamous "Theses on Feuerbach". yet Benjamin's criticism of Stalinist
Russia led Gershonr Scholem to understand the theses as Benjamin's overall response
to the Hitler-Stalin pact(WBP: 36) and hence not simplr locatable uithin a Marxist
trajectory. The text certainly critiques attempts at constructing a 'philosophy' ofhistory
(insofirr as such philosophies were characterized by progressivist teleological narratives). But thc text doesn't go so f'ar as to critique the 'concept' of history as such, insof'ar as the text itself seeks to provide a mat!'rialist concept of history as apprehension of
'now-time' in the service of interrupting thc supprcssion olthe past (as conventionally
appropriated). In surnmary. thc text's'name' expresses no more originarily an 'as such'
ol language than do more determinate. regionalized linguistic acts. This montent is the
first in a series of what nright be temed 'descriptive. agnostic insights' about reality
(discursive or otherwise) uhich one tinds throughout Benjamin's theses.
This ugnoiu continucs rr,ithin the context of thesis 2. To say that our imuge of
happiness is indissolubly bound up \\'ith an l/,,.e of redemption by lirtue ol a secret
index bequeathed to us by the past is to say that (l) our praxis (theoretical or otherrvise) arise solely within an associative (i.e.. imaginal) constellation and that (2) this
constellation constitutes a historical burden-i.e., the concatenation of e\pectatio investment between happiness and redenrption. It is a 'ueak' messianic porver

l' t.oru n,ur. g"n.rut iconochsric rcading ol Bcn.ianlin \lhich is svmpilhetlc to ny o\n. see Rebecca
C('ma). Mrtcrialist \lutrlions of lhe Bildcr\crbot. in Sitlr Dl J i\it,1 tht Diynrrnt Con't tdinn ol
Sisht in th! lli\tt)ti ol l)hilotopht, cd.. I)a\id Nlichacl Le!in (C0ribridgei Thc Ml'I Prcss. l9q9).,ll7-178.
Fnr onedelling rnore rpecillcrlly $rth rhc llis()n, thcses. \ee R.becca (lonral''.-BenJamir-s Endgame.'
tn lt'L !rr Be t Dti .t I'hilo*4tht DtsrntLttotl onLl L\p"ri!tu(. c(is.. \ndr,j\\ Ilcninmtn rnd Peler ()sborn

(Ne

\r York: Routledre. l9().1).l5l-191.

Pierrc Nlrssac.'iJirlrcr B(nit tin \ Purrl.rj.r\. trans.. Shierry \\cber \ieholson t(ambridgc:1he t4lT
Prcss. It/95). 15. toriginall) publishcd rrs t\tttt.." lt tlitlt.t Boid ti lParis: liliti(,rrs du Scuil. 19871).
llcnceti)ih r\ (WBP: prgc nu her).

321
ien

ja-

both because it provides no guarantees and because (insofbr as 'messianic' is synonynlrus, for Benjanrin, wilh 'revolutionary' ) it can only be actualized collectively (i.e..
via oppressed humanity).(FA: 33) lt is tor this reason that this "claim cannor be settled
cheaply".(l: 254) To state this is to acknowledge thc enormous caesua between the
attainmenl of happiness and the actual elticacy of revolutionary movements. Insofar as
these movements have betrayed their historical promises in the fbrm of mass genocide,
enslavement. and creation of poverty. humanity cannot (in the language of thesis 3)
consider itsell redeemed. And if only a redeerned humaniry receives the fullness of its
past in the lbrnr ()1'total and complete citability (here understood as either perceptive
intelligibility or as the decreativc kind lbund in Agamben). then redemption can in n.)
va.t be hori:onall.t' acknorledgect. The dead rernain dead and cannot be brought back.
Put differently. the future (in thc lbrm of 'receiving the fullness of the past') is open
only to itself(until it should happen to become present).(WBP: 120)

scpa;

ian

ic

ing to
vhere

ienjas neiect of

er rcrns nl'
l'

llis-

.vhich

ienja-

:pt 01'
re fhLCCrC-

pub-

Ieally
r linist
ponse

afxist
istory

lalrainsoon of

rnally
such'

is the
'ealitY
rge,

of

secfet
Jtherl) this
pecla-

)0\\ cr

I7 -l71.

ganc.'

r! \ll
I

er;

l1

While Benjamin, in no way. rules out the possibility (as he states in thcsis 5) Ihat
tlre past (again understood as past events) can be grasped as images in the lbrm of instantaneous lightning llashes. it must be stressed that such events can be grasped onl'
as images (i.e-. as lacking an)' moment of unconditionality: as with Benjamin's reference to monads in thesis 17. these images express past events only tiom a particular
standpoint. ln other uords. There are. lbr Benjamin. no guarantees of remembrance.
Moreover, every image not renrerlrbered is gone forever. This situation. as Benjamin
gleans historicall)' in thesis 8. is not the exception but the rule of contemporary lifb.
Given this. the historical materialist must orient him/herself towards a materialist corceptbn (as opposed to a teleological philosoph.r,l of history so that the materialist's
orientation and the perception of history resonate. In doing so. and in unlocking marginalized aspects olhistory, one questions the priority ofthe.r/alas guo and thus brings
about a 'real state ofemergency'. This interruption ofthe stalrr qao amounts to a fragile and temporarl interruption ol the historical narratiles rvhich each and every time
underpin views concerning progress-narratives u'hich, ultimately lead to quietism
insothr as they suppon the perception of Fascism as a historical norm. Put difl'erently.
thc project here is one of histo-y as demythologization. This au'areness momentarily
improves humanity's position $ ith respect to the struggle against Fascism insofar as it
sho\\sjust ho\\ remote from reality illusion leaves humanity.
The attainrnent o1'this revolutionary standpoint is by no means easy for humans.
ln an inversion ol the traditional notion of thc eternal deity pcrceiving all time as a
nun( stant. Benjanrin rct'ers to the angel ol history (in thesis 9), l,ho vieus historical
progress as a catastrophe piling wreckagc upon wreckage. This vieu'. like its traditional
theological cousin. is a rior uhich is. in principle. unthinkable bl,humans i.e., ue
are always afllicted by rzal utopian longings whether in the forrn ol'politically revolutionary impulses (as described by Benjarnin) or ontotheologically messianic impulses
(as articulated by Agamben). ln liont o1'humanity lies the immanent task ol'cxercising
contirued rigor against spccific manifcstations of such longing. In other words, the
myth of progress derircs liom a colossal misunderstanding of history. Thc question
again becomes one of thc e" cr-renewed project 01' education r ia demyihologization.
The substitlrtc conccpt ol'historical limc as concretely rccurrcnt 'no\\'s' (as opposcd to thc homogeneous. enpt) time illustratcd in thcsis l4)can- in l'acl. be affirmatir cl1' undcrstood along thc model o,',(.rlllr,t rathef than r:/rir;irr,,.r. Why one would nec-

Jt.r! Rr

\ ilrk\sll r\

!'ssarily have to grant philosophical lppeal to Paul lirr this insight is unclcar gi\en that
one llnds a similar conccpt of tirnc iI Aristotle (whcre. in the P/rt.rl.s. titne ultimately
gets articulated as a cyclc ofnon-identical moments). In any case. thc 'no\\' is 'placcdtime': it is alrvays embodicd. contextual. and historically situated. To hold that its lclation to the hishry of humanity corresponds to the relation bet\"ecn the history of humanity and the universe (as stated in thesis l8) is to acknowledge the alnrost imperceptible qualify ol'each and every non-identical 'now'. Put dillerently, the re\olutionary
moment is not, itself. subject to reprcsentation (even if the dialectical inage which signals it, to a certain extent. is ).
As stated earlier. Bcnjamin's point is not 10 espouse despair. Rather. it is to move
away fiom the particular dialectic of hope and despair. Any possibility of seizing a revolutionary moment is conlingent upon our understanding ol u here the crisis lies. and
horv difllcult it is to break rvith such a crisis. Then. and onll'thcn. can ue begin to
work towards change. And tbr Benjamin. change is always a mattcr of re-embodying
history via sober remembrance which cuts against the .\tutlts quo. However. just as
there is no 'as such'to the past or to language, there is also no'as such'to'the present'
or to 'law', 'authority', etc. This is, again. not a claim which states that revolutionary
struggles are rvorthless. It is a clain.r, however, $'hich states that ( l) such a struggle depends lbr its critical materials on the historical insights and developmental narratives
concerning all inherited social and political categories and (2) there is no guarantee of
success or ability to envision what a fullilled humanity would look like; it is, in thct, it
is just these 'idolatrous' attempts which have, in many cases. ended in disaster.

tunatc

is ilon
ultirna
granr

radica
cessir
simltl.r

o1'thir

ginnir

bility
and vr

(i.e.. !
critica
actual

belier
rl hat
partic

C'oncluding Remurks
This paper is successlul il'it shous the viability ofa radically dilferent interpretation of
Walter Benjamin's "History" theses lrom Agamben's-i.c.. one which operates under
the alternative category of iconoclasm'. Although I havc been arguing that the iconoclastic interpretation is more in line uith Benjamin's thinking than Agamben's antinomically messianic interpretation, I wish nonethcless to alllrm his project ofarticulating a marginalized history ol philosophical Judaism which takes Benjamin's thought as
its point of departure. As stated earlier. to suggest ihat Agambcn's usage of Jeu,ish
sources is in conflict with Jewish intellectual history is to miss thc point of his overall
project. lnstead, I rvould suggest the need tbr an qlternutivc marginalized history based
on a different 'now-time' than the one nhich I see underpinning Agambcn's project.
Agamben's antinomically messianic usage of the Talmud. Midrash. Kabbalah, and
Shabbatai Zevi were very appropriate- perhaps even necessary - rlithin tlre context of
Scholem's (and Benjamin's) Europe. At the tail-end of bitter disputes between the
Haskalah movement (which emphasized assimilation to European culture) and the Ortlrodox reaction (which emphasized purc adherence to the laws and rituals of rvhat it
took to be traditional Judaism). Scholem's project of establishing an academically respectable study ol Jewish mysticism was relieshing and exciting. Similarly. Martin
Buber and Abraham Joshua Heschel contributed to this general projcct by illustrating
mystical versions of Hassidic impulses within the contcxts of their orvn theological
careers. Today, horvever, when sirnplificd translations of Kabalistic texts can reatlily be
fbund at most commercial bookstores and embraced by popular entertainrncnt fcrsonalities. it has become ever clcarer that messianic and mvstical tbrrr.rs olJudaism untbr-

to tlrirl
rcspec
rhe di!

litlcs

"Ccrs,

BrcIo
ban):
ishai I
Sirat.

lioy

ot M.

rr given that
le ultimately

,'is'placedthat its rela-

istory of hust impercepevolutionary

1e

which sig-

it is to move
seizing a re-

-isis Iies. and

u,e begin to

:-embodying
'ever, just as
'the present'

-evolutionary

r struggle de-

tunately manifest extreme compatibility with conspicuous Capitalist consumption. This

is ironic insofar as it suggest that a thinking which strives to meet unconditionality is
ultimately tethered that which is conditional (thus illustrating Adorno's initial epigram). Today, a marginalized tradition of philosophical Judaism (one with genuinely
radical potential) would have to cast a critical glance at both utopian longings and excessive consumption (either ofimages, words, or things) even ifsttch a glance amounls
simplJ, to the sk)wing dov,n of a seeninglt' inevilable analogotts totlsut ptive compotctbitiry While providing a detailed alternative genealogy would far exceed the scope
of this paper, I would suggest that tlre construal of a critical iconoclastic tradition beginning with Medieval concerns over the unrepresentability of God and the incalcula6ility o=f Messianic return (e.g., Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, Gersonides, and Leone Ebreoa5)
and venturing into the modern critiques of (borh democratic and authoritarian) theodicy
(i.e., Spinoza, Mendelssohn, and Freud) would provide interesting resources lbr such a
critical glance. This construal would also go a longer way than Agamben has towards
actualizing a Benjaminian history of marginalized Jewish discourse. Nevertheless, I
believe that, in the end, Agamben has provided a senice by illustrating one model of
what such a history might look like (regardless of whether or not one agrees with his
particular lersion of it1.16

tal narratives
guarantee of
i is, in fact, it
LSter.

erpretation of
perates under
rat the icono-

rmben's anti:t of articulatr's thought as

ge of Jewish
ol his overall
history bascd
ben's project.
-abbalah, and
the context of
between the
:) and the Orals of $hat it
,dcnrically re-

ilarly. Martin
by illustrating
'n theological

can rcadil1" be

lmcn1 pers0nudaisnr untbr-

r:
In order lo gather together these diverse thinkers under the catcgory ol iconoclasm' one would have
to think togelher scvcral issues: the critique oldi\ine attribution. thc principle ol acconmodation uith
respecl to ScriptLrrc (i.c.. '1he Torah speaks lhe IanEluage of man'). the cquivocality of Scriptural language.
the discussions concerningthe'unity'ofGod. and the inherenl li ilations ofhuman reason The ibllouing
ritles provide on^ the most itiitiul 'il,gge'niot concerning thrs constcllationi Herbert Da\idson. ,ly'o\er
lldinknidd; The Jt4dD And /1i! Works (Ox,brd: Oxibrd Universily Press. 1005). ldit Dohbs-Weinslein.
"Oersonidcs Radically Modern Undcrstanding olllrc Agenl lnlellecl." ivlecting offie Minds: Th! Reldtion:i
Brtween itlcL/ie|Ltt ond Ctatsical llloden Eurcpaun Philosophv. ed. Stephen Bro\l'n (Louvainla-Neuve:
Brepols. l99E). l9l-211. ldit Dobbs-Weinstein. Lluinutntdes dn.l St Tho lct\ on th! Li lit\ ol Re.I'ion \Al
ban): SUNY Prens. 1995). Atros Funkcnslein- Theolag LI LI th. S(ie tili( lnqinatin filtn th( Mitldlr
,lg('s to the SrrL,ttt(enll (erlr/n (Princetolr: Princeton Univcrsity Press. 1986). Moshe l]albertal and A\ishai Margrlil. /r/o1dlr-r.1rans.. Naomi Goldbluln ((ambridge: I{arvard tjniversity Press. 1992). and Coleue
Srrlrr. I /rJ1,r'r ,tl .Lnish Phil'r,'tfir It th( .\lildle Agli lCambridge: Canbridge Uni\ersily Press. 1990)
r' Fnr r r(lJrnt lr(.rlrnLnt ol Ap.trnhen's relalion lo Ie$ish thoughl of$hich Iarn sympathetic. see Jef
tie,\ S. t-ibrrit. 'ljron the Sacriilcc oflh! Letler tl) ihc Vorcc ol Testimony: Ciorgio Agamben's Fulfillment
ol Nllaphlsics"- 1)7.rt,;/l{ \ Volumc37. Numbers 2-3. Sumner-Fall2007. I1-ll