ALPHONSO

LINGIS

NOTHING
IN COMMON

THE

e"
OF THOSE
WHO
HAVE
NOTHING
IN COMMON

Studies in Continental Thought

J o h n Sal l i s , general ed itor

Consulting Editors
Robert Bernasconi

William L. McBride
J. N. Mohanty

Rudolf Bernet
John D. Caputo

Mary Rawlinson

David Carr

Tom Rockmore
Calvin 0. Schrag

Edward S. Casey
Hubert L. Dreyfus

Reiner Schurmann
Charles E. Scott

Don Ihde
David Farrell Krell

Thomas Sheehan

Lenore Langsdorf

Robert Sokolowski

Alphonso Lingis

Bruce W. Wilshire
David Wood

ALPHONSO

LINGIS

THE

OF THOSE
WHO
HAVE
NOTHING
IN COMMON

I N DI A N A U N IV E RS I TY P R ESS

lUc<>+- fcf4

 1994 by Alphonso Lingis

All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying and recording, or by any information storage
and retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher. The Association of American University
Presses' Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only
exception to this prohibition.
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum
requirements of American National Standard for
Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed
Library Materials, ANS I Z39. 48-1984.
Manufactured in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Lingis, Alphonso, date
The community of those who have nothing in
common I Alphonso Lingis.
p.

cm. - (Studies in Continental thought)

ISBN 0-253-33438-1 (alk. paper). ISBN 0-253-20852-1 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Man.

2. Reason.

B945. L4583C66
179'.7-dc20
2 3 4 5

99 98

3. Death.

I. Title.

II. Series.

1994
93-23955

CONTENTS

the other community

15

the intruder

39

faces, idols, fetishes

69

the murmur of the world

107

the elemental that faces

135

carrion body carrion utterance

155

community in death

e o m m u n ity

is u s u a l ly conceived as constituted by a

n u m be r of i n d ividuals havi n g somet h i n g i n c o m m o n

a c o m m o n l a n g u age, a com m o n conceptual fra m e
wor k-an d b u i l d i n g somet h i n g i n c o m m o n: a n ation ,
a p o l i s , a n i n stituti o n . I started t o th i n k o f those who
are leavi n g eve ryt h i n g-wh o are dyi n g . Death comes
s i n g u lar ly for eac h ; each o n e d i es alone, H e idegger
said . But, in hospita l s , I h ad m any hours to th i n k of
the n ecessity, a m o n g the l iv i n g , to acc o m pany those
who are dyi n g . N ot only i s this true of the doctors and
n u rses, who do a l l they can, but of the one who goes
to stay with the dyi n g one to the end and who stays
when t h e re is no l o n ger any h eal i n g poss i b l e-who
k n ows i n h i s or h e r heart he or s h e has to stay. It is
the h ardest t h i n g there i s , b u t o n e k n ows it is what
o n e has to d o . N ot o n ly because it is a parent or lover
who is dyi n g , someone with whom o n e h as l ived
one's l ife; o n e w i l l stay when , i n the next bed or the
next roo m , t h ere i s someone one n ever k n ew, dyi ng
alone.

ALPHONSO L I N G I S

I s t h i s the cr itical point of i n d ividual moral ity o n ly?

I came to th i n k that a society that wou l d forsake the
dyi n g to die alone, whether i n hospitals or i n the g ut
ters, u nd er m i nes itself radically.
I s there not a grow i n g convictio n , c learer today
a m o n g i n n u m erable people, that the dyi n g of people
with whom we h ave n ot h i n g i n c o m m o n-no racial
k i n s h i p , no l a n g u age, n o rel igion , no econ o m ic i n ter
ests-concer n s u s ? We o bsc urely feel that o ur genera
tion is b e i n g j ud ge d , u lt i m ately, by the abandon of the
Cam bod i a n s , a n d S o m a l i a n s , a n d t h e soc i a l outcasts
in the streets of o ur own cities.
Com i n g back fro m th ese thoughts, I came to u n d er
sta n d that what concer n s us i n another is prec i sely h i s
o r h e r otherness-wh i c h appeals t o us a n d co ntests
us when he faces. The essay "Th e I ntruder" circ u m
scri bes t h i s oth er n e s s . The essay " Faces, Idols, Fet
ishes" exp l a i n s how real values are n ot what we h ave
in c o m m o n , b u t what i n d ividual izes each o n e a n d
makes h i m o r h er other.

I n " T h e Murmur o f the

Wo rld ," I set o u t to s h ow that l a n g u age i s not s imply

a code esta b l i s h ed by convention among h u mans, that
l evels o ur exper i e nces such that t h ey can be treated
as e q u iva l e n t a n d i nterc h an geab l e , b u t that h u m a n
langu age h as t o be seen a s ari s i n g o u t o f t h e m ur m ur
of nature-of a n i m a l s a n d f i n a l ly of a l l th i ngs that are
a n d t h at reso u n d . I n t h e sonor ity of o ur codes we
co m m u n icate n ot o n l y with h u m a n d ecoders, b u t with

ALPHONSO LINGIS

the chant a n d the com p l a i n t a n d the caco p h o n y of n a

tur e . "The E l em ental That Faces" stud i es t h e situatio n
where what i s said i s i n essenti a l ; what i s essential i s
that I be t h ere a n d speak. "Carr i o n Body Carr i o n Ut
terance" i s concerned with torture, w h i c h ar i ses in a
specific l i n g u istic situatio n : t h e vict i m is bei n g forced
to say that a l l that he or s h e said a n d b e l i eved is l i es,
that h e or s h e i s i ncapab l e of tr u t h . F i n a l ly, "Co m m u
n ity i n Death 1 1 addresses t h e cor:n m u n ity o n e h a s with
the dyi n g .

rom t h e begi n n i ng , p h i losoph ical thought, u n l i ke

t e wisdom of t h e sages of p re-Soc ratic G reece, I ndia,

Persia, a n d C h i na, was l i n ked to t h e cause of b u i l d i ng

c o m m u n ity. The rational form of k n owledge p rod uces

a com m o n d i sc o u rse that is i ntegral ly one and a n ew
k i n d of com m u n ity, a com m u n ity, i n p ri nc i p l e , u n
l i m ited .
Rational sci ence is not d i st i n g u i s h a b l e from the em
p i rical k n owledge of the great sedentary c ivi l izations
of I nd i a, C h i n a , the Mayas, the I ncas, or from that of
the nomads w h o have su rvived for c e ntu ries i n t h e i r
often h a r s h e n v i r o n ments, b y i t s co ntent o f observa
tions.

Claude

Levi-Strauss,

in

The

Savage

Mind,

s howed that the Amazo n i a n A m ericans had elabo

rated a representati o n of t h e i r envi ron ment that was
rigorously e m pi ric a l . Thei r p roc ed u res sc r u p u lou sly
d i st i n g u i s h ed effective k n owledge from h earsay and
approxi mati o n . T h e i r i d e ntification of the

spec i e s ,

p ro pe rties, a n d u ses o f the natu ral substances and l iv

i n g t h i n gs of t h e i r envi ron me n t was often far m o re
c o m p re h e n sive than that n ow contai n ed i n the data of
o u r botany,

zoology,

and

p h a rmaceutical

sc i ence.

ALPHONSO LINGIS

Their r e p resentatio n s were e q u ivale n t to o urs i n t h e

exigency for e m p i rical r i g o r i n observation a n d verifi
cati o n ; its real ization was l i m ited o n ly by the l i m its of
the region to which they h ad cogn itive access a n d by
the tec h no logical l i m its of t h e i r too l s for explor i n g
a n d experi m e nt i n g . N o r were their bodies o f k n owl
edge i n fer i or to o ur botany, zoology, geology, m eteo
ro logy, a n d astronomy in t h e i ntr i n sic coher e nc e a n d
consistency o f t h e i r patter ns of organizatio n .
What t h e West calls sci ence i s not acc u m u l ations of
observations b u t explanatory system s . E d m u n d H u s
serl defi ned t h e rational wi l l w h ic h e n g e n d e red sci
ence a n d p h i losophy as t h e wi l l to give a reas o n . Rea
sons are products of thought, and rational k n owledge
presents itself n ot as t h e s u m -total of i m press i o n s l eft
o n i n d iv i d u a l s by the acti o n of a l i e n forces, b u t as a
constructive wor k . I n w h at t h e West c a l l s sci ence , for
every b atc h of observations rec o rded a n d

sorte d ,

t h o u g h t seeks t o produce a reason . T h e reason i s a

m o re gen e ral for m u l ation from which the observa
tions c o u l d. be ded uced . It is what we c a l l an e m p i rical
,
law. Then thought seeks to give a reason for the rea
son . This i s what we call a theory, fro m which e m p i r i
cal l aws c o u l d b e d ed uced . T h o u g h t seeks t o create a
theory of a l l t h e theo ries i n every bra nc h of sc i e ntific
researc h , the Stan d ard Model from w h ic h , in h i gh-en
e rgy p a rtic l e physics, t h e theories of q ua n t u m me
c h a n ic s , radioactivity, a n d e l ectro m ag neti s m c o u ld be
d e rived.

Rational

sci ence

is,

Wer n e r

H eisenberg

T H E OTH E R COMM U N ITY

wrote, bent o n " b e i n g able to write o n e si n g l e fu n da

mental e q u ation fro m w h ic h the properties of all ele
m entary particles, and t h erewith the b e h avior of a l l
m atter whatever fol l ow." P h i losophy seeks t o give rea
son s for the rational procedures, e l aborates theories
of t h e relati o n s h i p between rati onal thought a n d real
ity, seeks reason s to bel i eve in rational thought.
The wi l l to give a reason c h aracterizes a certai n dis
c ursive

practic e .

In

the

m ercanti l e

port cities of

Greece, strangers arrive who ask t h e Greeks, Why do

you do as you d o ? I n a l l soc i eties where groups of
h u ma n s e l aborate their d isti nctness, the an swer was
a n d i s , Because our fathers h ave taught us to do so,
because our gods h ave decreed that it be so. Some
t h i n g n ew begi n s when the Greeks begin to give a rea
son that the stranger, who d oes not h ave these fathers
a n d these gods, can accept, a reason that any l uc i d
m i n d can accept. Such speec h acts are pledges. The
o n e who so an swers c o m m its h i m se lf to h i s state
ment, c o m m its h i m self to su pply a reason a n d a rea
son for the reaso n ; h e makes h i mself respo n s i b l e for
h i s state m e n t . H e c o m m its h i m self to a n swer for what
he

says to

every c o ntestatio n .

He

accepts

every

stranger as h i s j u dg e .
Rational practice e laborates a d i scourse that is o n e
a n d c o m m o n t o a ny lucid m i n d . I n what each o n e says
on h i s own a n d takes respo n s i b i l ity for, he fi n d s i m p l i
, cated what t h e others say. T h e w h o l e system o f rational d i sc o urse i s i m p l icated in the statem ents put forth

ALPHO N SO L I N G I S

by any researc h e r , by anyo n e who e n d eavors to th i n k

rati o n a l ly. Each o n e speaks a s a representative o f the
c o m m o n d i sc o u rse. H i s own i ns ights a n d utterances
bec o m e part of the anonymous d i scou rse of u n iver
sal reason .
T h i s d i sc u rsive practice t h e n i nvokes a h u man com
m u n ity in p r i nc i p l e u n l i m ited . A co m m u n ity i n which
each one, in fac i n g t h e other, faces a n i m perative that
h e fo r m u l ate a l l his e ncou nters and i nsights i n u n iver
sal terms, in forms t h at c o u l d be the i nformation be
l o n g i n g to everyon e .
T h e d i sc o u rse that, t o t h e stran ger w h o asks, Why
do you do as you d o ? , a n swers, Because o u r fathers
have taught us to do so, because o ur gods have de
c reed that it be so, elaborates the d i sti nctness of the
m u ltitude who speak thus. Moreover, t h i s d i sc o urse
i s n ot internally o n e , as i s rational d i scourse. A m o n g
the statem ents t h a t for m u l ate i mp ressions l eft o n i nd i
vid uals b y t h e action of a l i e n forces, there a r e a m u lti
p l icity of d icta, of ancestors or d ivi n ities, that rec u r in
t h e s peec h as passwords of an autochthonous m u lti
tude. Actions dete r m i n ed by the d icta of ancestors or
d i v i n ities can well e n l i st, in com m u na l wor ks o r m o n
u ments, a l l t h o s e w h o trace t h e i r b irth a n d t h e i r p l ac e
to them , b u t s uc h works elaborate the d i sti nctness o f
a progeny o r a c h o s e n rac e .
The p ro d uction of rational d i scou rse transform s ac
tio n . Actions d riven by m ute drives a n d crav i n gs of

T H E OTH E R C OM M U N ITY

one's own a re transformed i nto actio n s motivated by

reason s , w h i c h , as reas o n s , a re n ot o n e ' s own , and
solicit t h e assent of others . Such i n itiatives can e n l i st
the efforts of othe rs i n c o m m o n motivatio n s a n d be
come c o l l ective act i o n s . Each one i n vests his o r h e r
forces a n d passion i n e nterprises that absorb a n d de
personal ize h i m a n d her a n d that e n d u re a n d go on
wo rki n g o r d i si ntegrate without him o r h e r. When we
view e nterpri ses i n t h e p u b l ic fie l d , o u r own or those
of others, we explai n them with reasons which b e l o n g
t o n o o n e a n d to everyon e .
We ratio n a l i sts perceive t h e real ity o f b e i n g mem
b e rs of a com m u n ity in the real ity of works u nd e r
taken a n d real ized ; we perceive the com m u n ity itself
as a work. The rational ity of o u r d i sc o u rse l i es in the
reason s add uced and p rod uced ; we pe rceive reason
as a wor k-an enterprise and an ach i evement. The ra
tional d iscou rse we p roduce m aterial izes i n c o l l ective
enterprises. To b u i l d com m u n ity wou l d mean to col
labo rate in i n d u stry which o rgan izes the d ivision of
labor a n d to p a rtici pate in the market. It wou l d m ean
to partici pate in t h e elabo ratio n of a pol itical struc
ture, laws a n d c o m m a n d posts. It wou ld be to c o l labo
rate with oth e rs to b u i l d up p u b l ic wo rks and c o m m u
n icati o n s .
Wherever we fi n d works t h a t a re col lective e nter
p rises we fi n d thought of w h i c h o u r own (that is, the
thought we m a k e our own by a n swe r i n g fo r it o n o u r
own , m a k i n g it ratio n a l ) i s a representative. I n the

A L P H ON S O L I NG I S

pub l ic wor ks a n d m o n u m ents of North America we

see i n scribed the motivations and goals of us North
A m erican s ; in o ur factor ies, airports, and h ighways we
see o ur reasoned c h o ices a m o n g our

needs

and

wants, a n d o ur p l a n s . I n o ur system o f laws a n d o ur

soc i a l i n stitutions, we recogn ize o ur for m u l ated expe
rience, o ur j udgment, o ur debated consensuses. I n
o ur rational c o l l ective e n terprises we fi n d , i n pr i nc i
ple, not h i n g a l i e n t o u s , for e i g n , a n d i m p ervio u s to
o ur u ndersta n d i n g ; we fi n d o n ly o urselve s . We do
not, like t h e Bal i n ese, fi n d i n o ur i nstitutions, public
wor k s , a n d com m u n ity gather i n gs the vi sitation of
a l i e n s p ir its, d e m o n ic a n d d ivi n e forces, or pacts
made with the forces of volcanoes and rivers a n d
skies. We fi n d , b e h i n d t h e signs attr ibuted t o m e n ' s
god s , reason s i n c o m m o n h u man psyc h o logical n eeds
a n d dr ives .
I n t h e thought of t h e Amazo n ia n I nd i a n s or of n o
madic Maasai who wander the Rift Val ley i n East Africa
where h u man pr i mates have wandered for four m i l
l i o n years without leavi n g a n y constr uct i o n , w e can
recognize o n ly the m e m ory of i m pressions l eft by
a l i e n forces on m u lt i p l icities of i n d ividual m i n d s a l i e n
t o u s . W e see the evi dence for a com m u n ity, a n d the
signs that a com m u n i ty existed i n t h e past, in road s ,
aqued ucts, ports, tem p le s , a n d m o n u m ents. W e enter
i n to that c o m m u n ity by constr ucti n g the reason s that
motivated

its construct i o n s .

In

the Great Wal l

of

C h i n a , t h e I nca roads c u t i n the Andes, the pyramids

T H E OT H E R C OM M U N ITY

b u i lt i n Egypt a n d Central America, the irrigation sys

tem of Angkor , we fi n d thought at wor k of w h ic h our
own is a representative. O ur econ o m ics, political sci
ence, ecological sci ence , psyc h o l ogy, and psyc h oanal
ys is su pply, b e h i n d t h e d icta taken to be of ancestors
or divi nities w h i c h ordered these c o l l ective wor k s ,
reason s w h i c h motivated t h e m . They cease to be c o n
structions t h a t mater i a l ized the d isti nctness o f a prog
eny or a c hosen rac e . E l a borat i n g reasons b e h i n d the
d icta t h ey took to be of a ncestors or divin ities that
ordered the c o n str uction of these c o l l ective wor ks,
we fi n d we h ave e l aborated reason s to conserve or
recon str uct t h e m . We t h u s e n l ist, a n d e n l ist t h e Ch i
n ese, Aztecs , and K h m er , albeit posth u mo usly, in u n i
versal h u ma n ity.
We see the evidence for o ur c o m m u n i ty in the a n i
m a l s , vegetab l es, a n d m i nerals of o ur enviro n m e n t .
W e e nter i nto that com m u n ity b y u ndersta n d i n g our
m aterial enviro n ment, rec o n struct i n g the reason s that
motivated its prod ucti o n .
For t h e e nviro n ment i n w h ic h o ur com m u n ity sub
sists i s o n e it produces. It i s n ot a t h i n g's own n ature,
its properties l i n k i n g it with its natural setti n g , that
makes i t useful to u s , b u t t h e properties it reveals
when i ns erted i n to t h e i nstr u m ental system we have
laid out. Ratio n al practice m a kes the practicable fie l d
about us t h e c o m m o n f i e l d o f c o l l ective enterprises.
Ti m ber i s first cut i nto rectan g u lar boards before it can

ALPHONSO LINGIS

b e u sefu l ; t h e trees t h emselves are first hybr i d ized ,

thi n n ed o ut, a n d pr u ned before they can become u se
fu l as ti m ber . It i s n ot wi l l ow bark in its nature as wil
low bar k that we fi n d usefu l for o ur headaches, b u t
the extracted a n d p urified essence synthesized i nto
aspir i n

tablets.

There

are

whole

plantatio n s

n ow

where b i ologically e n g i neered species of plants grow

not on t h e earth b u t i n water , anc h ored o n floats of
p lastic foam fed by c h e m ical b l e n d s . There are re
serves now wher e genetic e n g i n eeri n g is pro d uc i n g
new species o f patented p la nts a n d a n i m a l s . Our re
search l aborator i es do n ot study natural entities, but
i n stead stu dy p ure water , p ure su lfur, a n d pure ura
n i u m wh ic h are fou n d n owhere in n ature and which
are pro d uced in the laboratory. The tabl e of e l e me nts
itself is no l o nger an i nventory of irred uci ble p hysical
n atur e ; atom ic fission a n d fusion m akes t h e m a l l s u b
ject to tran sfor m ati o n . The c o m m u n i ty which pro
d uces, a n d is produced by, reason s produces the
means

of

its

s u bs i stence

and the

material

of its

k n owledge.
As a b io logical spec i es , we a re o urselves man-made ;
o ur

specific

b i o l ogical

tra its-our e norm o u s ly en

larged n eocortex, the c o m plexity of o ur bod ies' neu

ral organ ization , the expanded representatio n of t h e
th u m b o n o ur cortex, our u pr i ght postur e , and our
h a ir l e s s ness-di d n ot evolve n aturally to d ifferentiate
us fro m t h e oth er pri mates, b u t evolved as a result
of o ur i nvention of symb o l ic system s , evolved fro m

T H E O T H E R C O M M U N I TY

feedback from cultu re-th e perfect i n g of tool s , t h e

o rganizati o n of h u nt i n g a n d gath e r i n g , the establ ish
ing of fam i l ies, the control of fi re, a n d espec i a l ly the
reliance o n systems of s i g n ificant symbo l s-language,
ritual , a n d art-for o r i entati o n , com m u n ication , and
self-contro l . These systems of sign ificant symbols de
l i neate t h e d i st i n ctness of t h e m u ltitud e who u se
them ; o u r specific b i o l o gical traits material ize this d i s
t i n ctness as the d i st i n ctness of a progeny. The rational
e l aboration of sign ificant symbols tra n sforms our bio
logical specificity, m a k i n g our species one com posed
of

i n d iv i d u al s

representative

of

u n iversal

com

m u n ity.
Rational d i scou rse

and

p ractice

makes

n at u re a

com m u na l work a n d makes o u r own n atu re o u r own

wo r k . We civil ized m e n who h ave p ro d u ced o u r own
envi ron ment see o n everyt h i n g i n it the fo rm a n d
s hape a n d species g i v e n to t h e raw mate rial of n at u re
by c o l lective h u m a n i ntentions a n d effo rt, w h i c h are
p ro d u ced by t h e p ractice of rational d i sco u rse. The
m a n - made species we a re , which p ro d u ces its own na
tu re in an envi ro n ment it p ro d u ces, fi n d s n oth i n g
wit h i n itself that is a l i e n t o itself, opaq u e a n d i m pervi
ous to its own u nd e rstand i n g . The i n d ivid ual of mod
ern cu ltu re , who affi rms h i m se lf with h i s i na l i en ab l e
rights a n d sets h i m se l f u p as legislator o f h i s own
laws , sets out to p rod uce h i s i n d iv i d u a l ity as that of a
n atu re closed u po n itself. I n t h e h u m a n com m u n ity

ALPHONSO LINGIS

h e f i n d s a work c losed i n itself a n d representative of

h i s own thought. As the i n d ivi d ual fi n d s that his own
thought i s representative of the whole system of ratio
nal thought, he w i l l fi n d on h i s fel l ow-man but t h e
reflection o f h i s o w n rational n ature.
Before t h e rational com m u nity, there was t h e e n
c o u nter w i t h t h e othe r , t h e i ntruder. The encounter
begir,is with t h e one w h o exposes h i mself to the de
mands and contestat i o n of the oth e r . Beneath t h e ra
tional c o m m u n ity, its c o m m o n d i sc o u rse of w h ic h
each l uc i d m i nd i s b u t the representative a n d its e n
terprises i n which t h e efforts a n d pass i o n s o f each a re
absorbed a n d depersonal ized , is another com m u n ity,
the c o m m u n i ty that d e mands that t h e o n e who has h i s
own com m u n a l i d e ntity, w h o p rod uces h i s own na
tu re, expose h i mself to t h e one with whom h e has
noth i n g in c o m m o n , the stranger.
T h i s other community i s n ot s i m ply abso rbed i nto
the rational c o m m u n i ty ; it rec u rs , it tro u b l e s the ratio
nal c o m m u n ity, as its d o u b l e or its s h ad ow.
T h i s other community forms n ot in a work, b u t i n
t h e i nterru pti on of work a n d enterprises. I t i s not real
ized in h av i n g or in p ro d uc i n g somet h i n g in c o m m o n
b u t i n exposi n g o neself to t h e o n e w i t h whom o n e
has not h i n g i n c o m m o n: t o the Aztec, the n o m a d , t h e
g u e rri l l a, t h e e n emy. The o t h e r com m u n ity forms
when o n e recognizes, i n t h e face of the other, an i m
perative . An i m perative that not o n ly contests t h e

T H E OTH E R COM M U N ITY

c o m m o n d i sc o u rse and com m u n ity from w h ic h h e o r

she i s exc l u d e d , b u t everyt h i n g o n e h a s o r sets out to
b u i l d in c o m m o n with h i m or h e r .
I t is n ot o n l y w i t h one's rational i ntell igence that
o n e exposes oneself to an i mpe rative . O u r rational i n
tell igence can not a rise without com m a n d i n g o u r sen
s i b i l ity, which m u st col l ect data from the e nvi ron ment
i n com p re h e n s i b l e a n d

reg u l a r ways, c o m m a nd i ng

o u r motor powers to m easu re the fo rces, obstac l e s ,

a n d causalities o f t h e p racticable field i n comprehensi
ble a n d reg u l a r ways, a n d c o m m a n d i n g our s e n s i b i l ity
to others to register the relations of c o m m a n d a n d
obed i e nc e a t wo rk i n t h e soc i a l field i n c o m p re h e n s i
b l e a n d regu lar ways . It is w i t h the n a ked n ess o f one's
eyes that o n e exposes o n eself to the other, with one's
hands a r rested i n thei r g r i p on t h i ngs a n d turned now
to the oth e r, o pe n - ha n d e d , and with the d i sa rm ed
frai lty of one's voice tro u bled with t h e voice of an
othe r .
O n e exposes o neself t o the other-th e stranger, t h e
destitute o n e , the j u dge-not o n ly w i t h o n e ' s i n si ghts
and o n e ' s i d eas, t h at t h ey may be conteste d , but o n e
also exposes the n aked n ess of one's eyes, one's voice
and o n e ' s si lences, o n e ' s e m pty h a n d s . For the oth e r,
the stra nger, t u r n s to o n e , n ot o n ly with h i s or h e r
c o nvictions a n d j u d g m e nts, b u t a l s o w i t h h i s o r h e r
fra i lty, s u scepti b i l i ty, m o rtality. H e o r she tu rns t o o n e
h i s o r h e r face, i d o l a n d feti s h . H e o r s h e turns to
o n e a face made of carbon c o m p o u n d s , d ust that s h a l l

ALPHO N SO L I N G I S

return to d u st, a face m ad e of earth a n d a i r , made of

warmth , of b l ood, made of l ight a n d shadow. H e o r
s h e tu rns t o o n e flesh scarred a n d wrin kled with suf
fer i n g a n d with m o rtal ity. C o m m u n ity forms when
one exposes o neself to t h e naked one, the destitute
o n e , the outcast, the dyi n g o n e . O ne e n te rs i nto com
m u n ity not by affi r m i n g o neself a n d o ne's forces b ut
by exposi n g o neself to expen d i t u re at a loss, to sacri
fice . Com m u n ity for m s in a moveme n t by which o n e
exposes o neself t o the oth e r, t o forces and powers
o utside o neself, to death and to the othe rs who d i e .
T h e rational c o m m u n ity that forms i n the exchange
of i nformatio n exc hanges abstract e n tities, idealized
signs of i deal ized refe rents. Com m u n ication i s ex
tract i n g the message from i r relevan t and confl icti n g
signals-no ise . I n te r l oc utors a re a l l i e d i n a struggle
agai n st noise; the i d ea l city of com m u n ication wou l d
be m ax i m a l lyp u rged o f n o i s e . But t h e r e i s n o i se i n te r
nal to t h e message-t h e opac i ty of the voice that
tra n s m its it. And t h e re i s the backgro u n d noise of t h e
w o r l d w h ic h can n ot be s i l e nced w i t h o u t si l e nc i n g o u r
voices too . B y envi s i o n i n g t h e h um a n voice i n t h e per
spective of evo l utio n a ry b i ol ogy, we l earn to hear the
m u r m u r of t h e wo r l d , w h ic h h u man voices conti n u e
a n d m a k e reso u n d fo r o n e another.
Beyon d

the

com m u n icatio n

with

one

a n ot h e r

th roug s i g n a l s , abstract entities, i n t h e comm u n ity a l

l i ed agai n st t h e r u m b l e o f t h e worl d , we make contact
with i n h u man t h i n gs by e mb rac i n g t h e i r fo rms and

T H E O T H E R C O M M U N I TY

t h e i r matter. We also m a k e contact with o n e a n ot h e r

b y contract i n g another's for m , b y transu bstantiat i n g
o u r own m aterial state.
The com m u n i ty that p rod uces someth i ng in com
m o n , that esta b l i shes truth a n d that n ow esta b l i s h es a
tec h no l ogical u n iverse of s i m u lacra, exc l udes the sav
ages, t h e mystics, t h e psyc hotics-exc l udes t h e i r ut
terances and t h e i r bod i es . It exc l udes them in its own
space : tortu res.
In t h e m id st of the work of t h e rational com m u n ity,
there forms the com m u n i ty of those who have n oth
ing

i n com m o n , of those w h o h ave n ot h i n gn ess,

death , t h e i r m o rtal ity, i n c o m m o n . But i s t h e death

that isolates each o n e a c o m m o n death ? And can it be
identifi ed as n ot h i n gn ess?

It-

ant isolated a n d e l uc i d ated the i mp e rative to give a

reason which t h e rational su bject obeys. Th i s i m pera

tive i s n ot s i m ply an o rd e r obse rved outside, in the
p ractice of a c e rta i n kind of society. The rational s u b
ject obeys an i mpe rative that, Kant set out to s h ow,
weighs i m me d iately on the m i n d of the i nd ivid ual .
The rational c o m m u n ity takes fo rm as a resu l t of t h i s
p r i o r s u bject i o n t o a n i m perative w h ic h each thought
fu l su bject d i scovers in h i mself.
Kant conc eived the rational com m u n ity as a republic
of autonom o u s agents, each obeyi n g the o rd e r that
c o m m a n d s t h e others by obey i n g t h e o rd e r h e legis
lates for h i m se lf. But when we exam i n e how, i n Kant's
a nalysi s , the rational agent e nc o u nters the other, we
fi n d that the fig u re of the other, ratio n a l ly c o m p re
hended, d o u b l es up i nto an i mage of sensuous suffer
i n g and m o rtality. I n t h i s d o u b le vi sage of the other,
we can see a d o u b l e contact with h i m a n d a d o u b l e
com m u n ity tak i n g form .
Thought, c o nceptual thought, is t h e p ractice of con
ceivi ng for sen sory patte rns we p e rceive ;

for the

ALPHONSO LINGIS

m asses, fo rces, a n d resistances we m a n i p u l ate; for

the looks, vocal izatio n s , a n d gestu res of others, con
s i stent

and

c o h e rent

c o nceptual

terms.

Rational

thought is the practice of form u lati n g , for observa

tions, t h e laws of n atu re, for m u l at i n g , for actions a n d
operatio n s , tec h n ical rules, a n d for m u l at i n g , f o r e n
cou nters w i t h others, the order o f society. Thought
represents t h e s h ifti n g sensory patte rns of our envi
ron me n t with c o n s i stent a n d cohere n t e m p i rical con
cepts a n d represents t h e envi ro n me n t as a whole
c o m p r e h e nsively with the laws of n atu re . Thought
represents t h e forces a n d

resistances of t h e field

about u s with t h e m ea n s-end order of p racticable real

ity. Thought represents the looks, voices, and ges
tu res of others about the th i n ke r with the econ o m ic ,
j u ridic, a n d pol itical rules o f t h e soc i al order.
As soon as thought arises, it fi n d s itself su bject to
an i m perative . I n o rd e r to recogn ize somet h i n g in the
passi n g patterns of t h e spectacl e about o n e , o n e has
to fo rm co rrect concepts. I n order to recogn ize con
stel lations of patterns o n e has to reason rightly. The
i m perative t h at weighs o n thought i s a fact. It i s t h e
fi rst fact ; e m p i rical facts can be encou ntered a s facts
o n ly by a thought that is b o u n d to conceive them cor
rectly.
Thought c a n fo rm i nconsistent c o ncepts and can
reason incohere ntly. Thought fi n d s itself not deter
m i n e d to conceive correctly a n d reason rightly, but

THE I NTRUDER

o b l i gated to do so. Thought, t h e activity of com pre

h e n d i n g sensory i m p ressions with concepts and of or
gan i z i n g concepts, d oes n ot arise as a d rive in o u r n a
t u re or as a free i n i tiative . An i m perative weighs o n
thought; thought fi n d s itself c o m m a n d ed t o th i n k.
Thought is obedience.
We col lect i m p ressions by exposi n g our sensory
su rfaces to the t h i ngs about u s , by moving over the
solid su rfaces a n d agai nst t h e obstacles about u s , ma
n euveri n g with a n d m a n i p u lati n g thei r forces, a n d by
interacti n g

with

other

sentient

and

self-movi n g

agents. I n o rd e r t o c o m p re h e n d t h e passi n g patte rns

as c o n sistent u n its and to recogn ize c o n stel latio n s of
u n its that rec u r , one h as to be able to c o m ma n d one's
sensory o rgans to c o l l ect sensory perceptio n s in or
de red ways, one h as to be able to c o m m a n d one's
post u re a n d t h e forces in one's l i m b s , a n d one h as to
be a b l e to c o m m a n d the moves with w h ic h one's
body

exposes

itself

to

others

and

faces

them.

Thought, which fi n d s itself c o m manded to thi n k, fi n d s

itself com manded t o b e i n c o m m a n d . T h o u g h t m ust
c o m m a n d its sensory-motor fac u lties so as to c o l l ect
i m p ressi o n s that it can comprehend with req u isite
concepts and relate with cogent reason s . Thought
m u st p roduce representations that f u nctio n as com
mands that p rogram the s e n s i b i l ity of t h e body, its
m ovements a m o n g t h i n gs , and its postu res before
othe rs .

ALPHONSO LINGIS

We do not h ave, Kant accepted fro m H u me , a n y

perceptio n of causa l ity; we do n ot h ave any perc e p
t i o n of t h e cau sal ity of o ur representations to ord er
o ur w i l l a n d t h e n ervous circ u itry a n d m u scu lature of
o ur bod ies. But we h ave to th i n k-we are commanded
by the i m perative that weighs o n o ur thought to
t h i n k-that t h ey can so order them .
And we sense that t h ey can . There i s , i n the recep
tivity of o ur sens itive surfaces, a fee l i n g of bei n g n ot
o n ly i n for m ed by the for m s b u t affected by t h e forces
of o ur e nviro n me n t ; this fee l i n g i s the pl easure a n d
t h e pai n with w h i c h w e perceive t h e m . There i s also,
in the i n itiatives by which our thought ari ses over
those i m press i o n s to i d entify them a n d to relate the m ,
a fee l i n g o f b e i n g su bjected t o the weight o f the i m
perative. Kant i d entifies t h i s sense of fi n d i n g o neself,
i n t h e very spontaneity of one's thought that form s
concepts a n d relates t h e m , burdened with t h e force
of the i m p erative, the senti ment of respect.
The senti ment of respect is, Kant says, someth i n g
l i k e inc l i n ati o n , somet h i n g l i ke fear-l i ke the pain i n
fear. T h i s p a i n i s n ot t h e sense o f constr ict i o n felt by
our s e n s u o u s fac u lties u nd er the force of a for e i g n
material object that presses i nto o u r su bstance a n d
wou nds i t . It i s the s e n s e o f o ur sensory fac u lties be
ing i n tercepted i n their n atural attac h ment to t h e
t h i n gs a b o u t t h e m a s l ures o f pleasure, and i n th e ir
reco i l fro m t h i n gs as threats of pai n. For the c o m m a n d
that c o m m an d s o ur t h o u g h t t o be i n c o m m a n d com-

THE I NTRU D E R

m a n d s o u r sensory fac u lties to expose t h e m selves,

not to the pleas u rabl e or painful affects left o n us by
the th i n gs of the enviro n m e nt, but to t h e i r objective
p ro pe rties, the s e n s u o u s patterns i n as m u c h as they
can be i d e ntified objectively a n d correlated rationally.
This p rod uces i n our sensuous wi l l , which is not
a n aesthetized b u t h e l d in abeyance a n d reduced to
passivity, a sense of frustration , of suffe r i n g . This suf
feri n g is the i n ne r evidence we have of the i nc l i n ation
that thought, bent under t h e weight of the i m perative,
puts on o u r sensib i l ity.
Thought i s com m a n d ed to be in com m a n d , to com
mand its own sensory-motor fac u lties. It m u st o rd e r
one's senso ry-motor fac u lties i n s u c h a way that they
c a n col lect d ata from the e nvi ronment i n c o m p re h e n
sib l e a n d reg u l a r ways, that t h ey can m ea s u re the
forces a n d obstac les a n d causal ities of t h e p racticab l e
field i n c o m p re h e n s ib l e a n d reg u l a r ways, a n d that
t h ey can register the relations of c o m m a n d and obe d i
e nc e t h a t reg u l ate the social order i n c o m p rehensible
a n d reg u l a r ways. For o n e can sense o n e ' s dive rse
l i mbs and senso ry su rfaces react i n g to whatever p res
s u res affect t h e m , a d h e r i ng to whatever p leasu rab l e
contacts l u re t h e m . O n e h a s to then i ntegrate o n e ' s
sensory-moto r powers i n s uc h a way that o n e can ad
vance c o m p re h e nsibly i nto n atu re, i n to the p ractica
b l e fie l d , i nto t h e soc i a l o rder.
To do so o n e has to double up the actu al percep-

ALPHO N SO L I N G I S

tion o n e c a n have of o neself at any moment with a n

advance representation o f o n eself, an i mage o f the
figure one will form while acti n g in nature, in t h e
practicable f i e l d , a n d i n society. These i m ages Kant
names "types . " They are practical i mage s ; t h ey are
n ot representations of what o n e is but advance d i a
grams of t h e agent o n e m ust m ake of o neself.
The i mages o n e for m s of one's sen sory-motor pow
ers i ntegrated in action are formed by analogy with
the totalities, regulated by law, one k n ows. These to
talities are natur e , the practicab l e field, and society.
O n e has to for m an i mage of o neself as a m u lti p l ic ity
of e l e ments regu l ated , l i ke a n ature, with u n iversal
and n ec essary laws. O n e has to form an i mage of
o n e ' s l i m bs a n d organs l a i d out, l i k e a practica b l e
fie l d , as a system o f means a t t h e service o f thought.
And one has to form a n i mage of o n e's fac u lties as a
m u l t i p l ic ity of agencies ordered, l i k e a m icrosociety,
in r e l ations of c o m m a n d a n d obed i e nc e .
These i m ages are n ot produced b y e m p irical obser
vation of o neself. They are n ot produced by the i nves
t igat i o n of the e m p ir ical laws t h at i ntegrate one's o r
gan i s m a n d one's sentient nature, of t h e m ec ha n ical

laws that regu l ate one's n ervous circu try and m uscu
lature, o r o f t h e soc i o b i o l ogical l aws t h at gover n one's
n ature as a gregar i o u s a n i m a l . It i s not thr o u g h ever
greater u ndersta n d i n g of the physico-c h e m ical laws of
u n iversal nature t h at o ne w i l l o btai n an i m age of one
self as a n ature able to explore nature. The advance of

THE I NTRU D E R

m ec ha n ical a n d tec h nological u nd e rsta n d i n g wi l l n ot

p rovid e o n e with an i mage of oneself as a set of
means able to man i p u late t h e p racticable field. The
advance of eth no b i ology will n ot o n e d ay make one
see o neself as a m ic rosociety of fac u lties abl e to p ro
d uce a representation of the econ o m ic , j u ridic, a n d
pol itical o rd e r o f society. The p ractical i mages o f o ne
self that o n e fo rms when o n e acts a re i n stead p ro
d uced from with i n , d i ag ra m med by thought in obedi
ence to its own i mp e rative. They are t h e i m ages of
o neself that one has to p roduce i n o rd e r to envision
act i n g i n n atu re, in the p racticable fie l d , a n d i n the
social field in obedience to t h e i m p e rative. They are
i mages, p rod uced i m m ed i ately, that make it poss i b l e
for t h o u g h t t o conceive of itself a s b e i n g i n c o m m a n d
a n d t h u s b e i n g able t o o bey. They d i s p l ac e t h e i mage
of o neself p ro d uced by e m p i rical observatio n of one's
natu re, by p ractical observation of the uti l i ty of one's
l i mbs a n d o rgans, a n d by soc i a l observat i o n of one's
moves in the social field.
They a re p ractical i mages, i m perative i mages. As
o n e acts in one's sensory e n v i ro n ment, o n e does not
perceive o n e ' s o rgan i s m as a sensitive mass reacti n g
spasmodical ly t o sensory substances p ro m i s i n g p lea
s u re or em itti n g pai n , b u t i magines one's sensory s u r
faces oriented a n d foc u sed by psyc h o p hysio logical
reg u lations p roper to o n e ' s own natu re. As one ma
n euve rs in the p racticable field exten ded about o n e ,
o n e d o e s n o t perceive t h e masses o f o n e ' s l i m bs re-

ALPHONSO LINGIS

act i n g to the p hysical fo rces that t h ey col l i de with, but

i magi nes them o pe rati n g as i n struments at the service
of one's own e n d s . As one advances in the field where
others perc eive a n d act, o n e does not perc eive one's
l i m bs react i n g to p hysical forces o n ly, b u t i magi n es
them respo n d i n g to c o m m a n d s ; o n e i magi n es oneself
obeyi n g the o rd e rs of others because one's l i m b s and
m e m b e rs o b ey the o rd e rs given by o neself.
The i n d iv i d u al w h o sets out to make his disparate
sensory a n d motor powers, reacti n g episodica l ly to
t h e l u res of senso ry appariti o n s that form and d i ssolve
about h i m , i nto a nat u re , a total ity reg u l ated by laws ;
i nto a set of powers s u bo r d i n ated to h i s rational fac
u l ty as means to e n d ; i n to a m ic rosociety of powers
reg u l ated by relations of c o m m a n d and obedience
who sets o u t to do so in actio n , i n p ractical l ife,
th ro u g h

his

p u rposive

u n de rtaki n gs

and

through

work-makes h i mself a work i n somet h i n g of the

sense an a rtwo rk i s a wo rk. T h at i s , a p rod uct that i s
fi n ite, fi n i shed i n itself, enclosed with i n b o u ndaries
which are its c o m p l etio n , self-contai nment, a n d per
fect i o n .
Exterio r to u s , we encou nte r the others. O u r fel l ows
pass by u s . They take for m a m o n g the sensory s u r
faces i n o u r e n v i ro n m ent. They a l so face u s , as others .
They d e m a n d t o be recogn ized as other t h a n t h e sen
sory i m p ressi o n s p h o s p h o rescent in our own sen s i b i l -

T H E I NT R U D E R

ity. To recognize t h e other, Kant says, is to recogn ize

the i m perative for law that rules in the other. To rec
ogn ize the other is to respect t h e oth e r .
H e re w e c a n d i st i n g u i s h between what we c a n c a l l
a d e pth-pe rceptio n of t h e other a n d a su rface-sensitiv
ity to the other. By a depth-perception of t h e other, I
m ean the per-ception that views t h e colored a n d pal
pable su rfaces of the other as s u rfaces of a p hysio l ogi
cal a n d b iologica l d e pt h ; sees these su rfaces sh ifti ng,
tensi n g , a n d rel axi n g a n d d ivi n es , beneath t h e m , m u s
c u l a r contractions m a i nta i n i n g eq u i l i b ri u m ; sees these
su rfaces b reath i n g a n d sweat i n g and d i v i n e s , ben eath
t h e m , glan d u l a r f u n ctio n i ngs, ci rc u l atory cu rrents, a
specific m etabo l i s m . Perception senses also ten s i o n s,
d rives, a n d c o m p u l s i o n s that w r i n k l e th is b row, tense
these fists, focus these eyes. This percepti on exten d s
on b e h i n d t h e su bstance e nclosed w i t h t h e s e s u r
faces, to t h e depth of t h e wo rld beh i n d it-e nvis ions
t h e road t h e oth e r h as traveled, the obstacles h e has
cleared, t h e heat of t h e s u n h e i s flee i n g . Perception
perceives th ro u g h t h e su rface tu rned to u s , i nto the
depth of the o rg a n i s m a n d i nto the d e pth of t h e
wor l d .
This perception req u i res the t h o u g h t that wi l l elabo
rate b i o l ogica l and p hysi o l og i ca l concepts and laws so
as to u nd e rstand t h e secretio n s a n d movem ents ob
served on t h e othe r's su rface s , a n d will elaborate psy
c h o l og i ca l concepts a n d laws so as to u n d e rstand t h e
d rives a n d desi res sensed i n h i s g r i m aces a n d pos-

ALPHONSO LINGIS

tu res. T h i s perceptio n req u i res the psyc h o p hysiologi

cal concepts a n d laws that represent his d rives and
desi res as con n ected with biological a n d p hysi o l ogical
p rocesses in h i s sentient and self-movi n g o rgan i s m . It
req u i res the thought that w i l l elaborate p hysico-c hem
ical concepts a n d laws to u nd e rstand the material
world b e h i n d h i m , t h e road h e i s wal k i n g , a n d the
forces that o pe n

befo re, s u p po rt, or obstruct h i s

movements. It req u i res t h e m icrobiology a n d o rganic

c he m i stry whose concepts a n d laws wi l l m a ke t h is o r
gan i s m i ntel l i g i b l e as a part of material nature.
The postu re a n d movements of t h e other, as o n e
perceive s the m , d o n o t o n ly show position a n d d i s
placement coded by p hysical a n d p hysiological laws ;
t h ey also s h ow a c u ltu ra l cod i n g . The other stan d s i n
m i l itary e rectness , moves with J apanese g l i de s , nods
with Turkish

affi rmatio n a n d

negat i o n , sh rugs her

s h o u l d e rs and p u rses her lips in F rench k i n esics, sits

o n c h a i rs in Victorian d e m u re ness o r o n his hau nches
i n I nd ia n postu re. The othe r s m i les i n the b u reauc ratic
or secretarial m a n ner, l a u g h s at accidents the J avanese
way, fee l s C h r i stmas joy o r Songran h i l arity , o r feel s
I s l a m ic

i n d i g natio n

and

Scan d i navia n

l o n e l i ness.

When the other speaks, it i s with the tongue of a na

tion , t h e i nton atio n of a c l ass, the rhetoric of a soc i a l
positio n , t h e i d i o m of a s u bc u lture, the voc a b u lary of
an age g ro u p . When o n e perc eives the other, o n e
sees b e h i n d h e r postu re a n d movem ents t h e demands
of a j o b , t h e codes of etiq uette, t h e h i sto ry of a na-

TH E I NT R U D E R

tion . O n e sees b e h i n d h i s feel i n gs t h e structure of h i

e rarc h ie s , t h e rites o f passage of a c u l t u re , t h e polari
ties of i d eologies. O ne envi s i o n s b e h i n d h e r speech
the semantic, syntactic, g ra m m atica l , a n d p h onetic
patterns of a c u l t u ral a re n a a n d a h i story. The depth
perception of t h e other req u i res the thought that rep
resents the concepts a n d laws of d isci p l i n i n g , ed uca
tion , job trai n i n g , p rofessional etiq uette, k i n esics, l i n
g u i stics,

and

u lt i m ately

eth n o b i o l ogy

and

a n i mal

psyc h o l ogy.
The forms of t h i s thought are req u i red by the ap
p roach of the othe r , as a su rface that forms over a
mate rial s u b stance, tak i n g form i n a fie l d of structu res
and forces . U n d e rsta n d i n g represents the forms a n d
move m e nts of t h e others a s su bject t o psyc h o l ogical ,
phys io l o g i ca l ,

and

p h ys i ca l

laws

and

l i n gu istic,

k i nesic, and cu ltu ral cod i ngs. To u nd e rstand the other

is to u nd e rstand these laws a n d these codes as i mp e r
ative for o n e's own u nd e rsta n d i n g .
B u t t h e othe r is a l so other. T o recogn ize the othe r
a s other i s t o sense t h e i m pe rative wei g h i n g on h i s o r
h e r thought. It i s t o sense i t s i m perative force-a force
that b i n d s me also.
To recogn ize the other i s to see his o r h e r position
a n d move m e n ts as commanded by a rep resentati o n
h i s o r h e r t h o u g h t for m u l ates fo r itself i n su bjection
to its own i m perative . It is to see h i s posi t i o n , not as
p ro d u ced by the laws of g ravity a n d h i s movement,

ALPHONSO LINGIS

n ot as effects of p hysical p ressu res, b u t as p roduced

by a rep resentation his thought fo r m u l ates for his wi l l .
It i s t o see h e r postu re o rd e re d , n ot b y t h e codes of
h e r c u ltu re, but by what she sees as her tas k . It i s to
see h i s c l e nched fist or expansive s m i l e , n ot p ro d uc ed
by b i o l ogical d rives o r psyc h o logical c o m p u ls i o n s , b u t
b y rep resentatio n s o f t h e d e s i rable a n d t h e i m perative
h i s thought for m u late d . It i s to see h e r fo r m u l at i o n s
and

expressions,

n ot as

i n stances of p rofessional

tra i n i n g o r eth n ic cod i ngs, b u t as i ss u i n g f ro m h e r

own representation of what i s req u i red a n d what i s
p roper.
I do not see the cau sal ity h i s rep resentation wou ld
h ave on h i s n e rvous c i rc u itry a n d m u sc u latu re ; I i n
d eed do n ot s e e t h e representation t h e oth e r forms
in his m i n d . The command wei g h i n g o n h i m , that he
for m u l ate a representation of what i s req u i red and
command his sensory-motor fac u lties with that repre
sentat i o n , i s also n ot a hypothesis my thought fi n d s
itself req u i red t o fo r m u late i n o rde r t o m a k e h i s pos
ture, moves, and wo rds i n te l l ig i b l e to m e . For my p e r
ception of h e r o rgan ic p rocesses a n d of the p hysical
and c u ltu ral field b e h i n d them h as to be u nd e rstood
i n terms of psyc h o l ogical , p hysio logical , and physico
c h e m ical

l aws .

a m o b l i gate d ,

by the

i mperative

wei g h i n g on my t h o u ght, to expl a i n eac h of her posi

tions a n d m oves by the u n iversal laws regu lating o r
gan i s m s a n d p hysical bodies, to exp l a i n each of h e r
gestu res a n d wo rds b y t h e laws o f psyc h o l i n g u i stics

T H E I NT R U D E R

a n d the codi ngs of cu ltu re . I am o b l i gated by the i m

perative wei gh i n g o n my own thought t o s e e h i m o r
h e r as real , that i s , as an i n tegral part o f real ity a n d
regu l ated by the u n iversal laws t h a t make the s pecta
cle of s u rface appearances about me n at u re . I have to
ass u m e t h at any i rreg u l a r and u np redicted moves they
make or words they utter are exp l a i n a b l e by e m p i rical
laws, j u st as, Kant says, I am o b l iged to hold that an
apparently i rregu l a r movement of a planet is explai n
a b l e by the laws of astro n o my.
What i n itiates that other v i s i o n of h i m o r her, that
sense of h i s o r her s u rfaces as commanded by another
l aw-that rep resented by his o r her own m i nd i n obe
d i ence to its own i m pe rative-is the i m med i ate sense
I have of the i m perative in h i m o r her. To sen se what
wei g h s on h i s or her thought as an i m perative, a n d
n o t as a natural causal ity, i s to s e n s e i t as a force i m
perative fo r m e a l s o . I fi nd myself affl i cted with the
i m perative that com mands the other. I feel its weight
as a force that wei g h s on my own u nderstand i ng. I
fi nd myself compel led to see h i s or h e r s u rfaces as
orde red s u rfaces, exposed to me a n d o rd e ri n g m e ,
that i s , fac i n g m e .
T h i s s e n s e of an

i m perative i n

h i m o r her that

wei g h s on me also is i m mediate; i t is not a hypothesis

i ntro d u ced at some poi nt of a n u ndersta n d i n g of h i s
o r h e r positi on a n d m oves as prod u ced b y i ntraor
gan i c a n d i n trapsyc h i c depths and the depths of na
tu re and c u l t u re beh i n d h i m or her. The sense of an

ALPHO N SO L I N G I S

i m p e rative i n the other i n te rrpts that u nd e rsta n d i n g

from t h e fi rst. The sense o f h i s o r h e r s u rfaces a s t h e
s u rfac i n g of an o rd e r faci n g m e d isplaces the p e rcep
tion of his or her su rfaces as the su rfaces of a n organ i c
a n d n atu ra l d e pt h .
This i s w h y it can h appen that with t h e l east g l i mpse
at t h e othe r-the m o me n tary g l i m pse at the s l u m
c h i l d i n t h e street a s my c a r d rives by, t h e m o mentary
d u l l g l i nt of the beggar's eyes i n the dark as I head for
the resta u rant-I can fee l arrested in my own i nten
tions, contested . When I then elaborate a representa
tion of what faced m e , situati n g the su rface I saw i n
t h e depth o f b iological a n d psychic d rives beneath it
the a n i m a l avidity, the reflexes conditioned by pass i n g
strangers-an d by situati n g it i n t h e d e pth o f cu ltu re
b e h i n d it-t h e conditioned codes of the i nd i ge n o u s
before t h e passage of fore i g n tou rists, t h e i m m igrant's
fau lty com ma n d of the laws of eti q uette a n d of the
laws of gram m a r in my language exp l a i n i n g t h e raw
force of t h e word s h e u se d , the sense of another i m
p erative d i ss i pates. My sociologica l , pol itica l , anth ro
pologica l , a n d b i o l og i cal u nd e rsta n d i n g reesta b l ishes
my i m perative alone o n my thought; m y explanatio n s
j ustify m y o w n u nd e rsta n d i n g a n d my own i ntenti o n s .
The i m perative I s e n s e com ma n d i n g the position of
t h e other wei g h s on me as i mm ed iately as t h e i m pe ra
tive m y thought f i n d s on itself ; I sense it in the same
sense of respect with which my m i n d sen ses the i m
p erative for law wei g h i n g o n itself. B ut i t i s another

THE I NTRU D E R

imperative, contest i n g the i m perative my thought has

always o b eyed.
What i s it that locates fo r me the a l i e n i m perative
on the su rface of the other which I see i n the m idst of
the order of n atu re , of the practicable fie l d , a n d of
society? I t i s the sense of t h i s su rface as a su rface of
suffering. I n the m easu re that I sense the positio n s
a n d m oves of the other, n ot res u lt i n g from t h e con
fl u e n ce of p hysical forces about h i m , n ot as si mply
adj u stments to t h e forces a n d s h i fts in h i s o r h e r p hys
ical envi ro n m e nt, but p u s h i n g agai n st the h ard edges
of real ity, buffeted and wo u nded by t h e m , I sense i n
h i m an i m perative oth e r than that i n obedience to
which I form u l ate the laws of n ature. It is in the mea
s u re that I sense the mane uvers of the other, not as
s i m ply m ovements of an i nstru ment activat i n g and ac
tivated by the i n stru m ental complex about h i m , but
strivi n g to reorient the d i rection s of force in the prac
ticable fi e l d and wearied and exhau sted by the forces
of t h i n gs that resi st h i m , that I sense in h i m an i m pera
tive for an o rd e r other than that of t h e final ities of t h e
layout of t h i ngs. I nasm uc h a s I sense the gestu res and
appeals of the other, not s i m ply form u lati n g t h e forms
req u i red by the professi o n , the socia l status, the age
g ro u p , the eti q u ette, the circulation of i n fo rmatio n
a n d m essages, b u t falteri n g , hesitat i n g , a n d offended
by what i s said, I sense in h i m an i m perative other
than that with w h i c h I u nd e rstan d the laws a n d codes

ALPHONSO LINGIS

of t h e social field. I n fac i n g me i n t h e l ight of day,

h e s h ows wri n kl es and wo u nd s , in advanc i n g in t h e
practicable fie l d , s h e reveals fatig u e a n d exhausti o n ,
i n m ov i n g i n t h e theater o f society, h e o r s h e exposes
h i s o r her v u l n e ra b i l ity to offen ses and h u m i l i ation.
One does n ot, properly speaki ng, pe rceive this suf
feri n g . S i ght positions t h e color a n d situates it at a d i s
tance; sight c i rcu mscribes the conto u rs enclosing a n
exterior su bstance.

Percepti o n , that seei ng-t h ro u g h

w h i c h p e n etrates t o appre h e n d the d e pth , does n ot

,
see the suffe ri n g. The a l i e n suffe r i n g does not exten d
a t a viewi n g d i stance, b u t afflicts my s e n s i b i l ity i m m e
d i ately. It is felt i n my eyes whose d i rection is con
fou nded, whose foc u s soften s , whose g l ance turns
down in respect. It i s felt i n my h a n d that exten d s to
clasp t h e h a n d of another as a m a n i p u latable l i m b , but
whose gri p loosens u nd e r t h e sense of a sensitivity
that tou c h e s me. It is felt i n my voice that is i n com
mand of its own o rd e r a n d speaks to com ma n d , but
w h i c h falters, hesitates, and loses its coherence be
fore the n o n response and the s i l ence of the othe r.
The su rfaces of t h e other, as su rfaces of su scepti b i l
ity a n d suffe r i n g , a r e felt i n t h e caressing movement
that trou bles my exp l o r i n g , m a n i p u lati n g , a n d expres
sive h a n d . For the hand that caresses is n ot i nvestigat
i n g , does not gather i nformatio n , is not a sense o rgan.
It exten d s ove r a s u rface where t h e i nfo rmative fo rms
soften a n d s i n k away as it advances, where agitatio n s

T H E I NT R U D E R

of a l i e n pleasure and pai n s u rface to m eet it a n d move

it. The hand that caresses d oes not appre h e nd o r ma
n i p u late; it i s n ot an i n stru ment. It extends over a s u r
face which b locks t h e way to t h e su bstan ce w h i l e giv
i n g way everywhere ; it exten d s over l i m bs w h i c h h ave
abandoned t h e i r util ity a n d t h e i r i ntenti o n s . The hand
that caresses d oes not com m u n i cate a message. It ad
vances repetitively, a i m l essly, a n d i n d efatigably, not
k n owi n g what it wants to say, where it i s goi ng, or
why it has come here. In its a i m l essness it i s passive,
i n its agitation it no longer moves itself ; it is moved
by the passivity, the suffe r i n g , the to rments of p lea
s u re and pai n , of the other.
What recogn izes t h e suffe ri n g of the othe r i s a sen
sitivity in my h a n d s , in my voice, a n d in my eyes,
which fi n d s itself no longer moved by my own i mpera
tive but by the move m e nts of abandon and v u l n erab i l
ity o f t h e other. This sensitivity extends n o t t o o rd e r
the c o u rse a n d heal the su bsta n ce of the other, but to
feel t h e fee l i n g of t h e other. The m ovement of th is
sen sitivity recogn izes t h e su rfaces of the other as a
face appea l i ng to m e a n d p utti n g demands on m e . It
recogn izes the i m perative that com ma n d s the other
orderi n g m e also. What recogn izes the suffe r i n g of
the othe r i s .a movement i n one's hand that turns
one's dexterity i nto tact and tenderness; a movement
i n one's eyes that makes it lose s i ght of its objectives
and t u r n down in a recoi l of respect; and a movement

ALPHONSO LINGIS

i n one's voice that i nter r u pts its co h e re n ce a n d its

force, confuses its concepts and its reasons, and trou
bles it with m u rm u rs a n d s i lence.
The su rfaces of the other, su rfaces of suffer i n g, that
face me a p peal to m e a n d make d e m a n d s on m e . I n
them, a n a l i e n i m perative weighs o n m e . The weight
of the i mp erative is felt in the su rfaces with w h i c h t h e
oth e r faces m e w i t h h i s o r h e r wear i n ess a n d v u l n e ra
b i lity and w h i c h affl ict me and confo u n d my i nten
tions.
I t i s felt i n as m u c h as t h e s u rfaces with w h i c h t h e
othe r faces m e a p peal t o m e as su rfaces o f exposu re
a n d vul n erab i l ity w h i c h cal l upon my resou rces. The
other faces m e with a turn of his o r h e r eyes, expo s i n g
t o m e t h e naked n ess o f h i s o r h e r eyes, u n s h ielded
a n d u nc l othed . T h i n gs-ba re room s, naked wal ls-de
rive t h e i r n akedness from

the

body that i n habits

them ; the n akedness of the body that d e n u d e s itself

d erives from the n akedness of the fac e . O n ly one who
faces can d e n u d e his or her body; the one who t u r n s
t o h i s o r h e r tasks clothes h i s o r h e r body w i t h t h e
s k i l l s of the deep-sea d iver, the forces o f the long
d i stance r u n n e r, the m e l o d ic vei l s of t h e b a l l et. I n
t u r n i n g t o m e with the n akedness of h i s o r h e r eyes,
t h e other bares h i s o r h e r face.
The othe r faces me with a gestu re of h i s or h e r
hand . The m oves o f h i s o r h e r h a n d w h i c h add ress

THE I NTRUDER

me grasp on to n ot h i ng, form nothi n g, exten d to m e

e m pty-handed.
The other faces m e with h i s o r h e r words. These
words, which d i ssi pate without leavi n g a trace, w h i c h
a r e n ot an arm o r an i n st r u m e nt, a n d w h o s e force I
can resist by d o i n g noth i n g-by j u st d o i n g whatever it
was I was d o i n g-are h i s or h e r way of c o m i n g dis
armed a n d d i sa r m i n g .
With a look o f h e r eyes, a gest u re o f h e r hand, a n d
w i t h a word o f greeti n g, t h e other faces m e a n d a p
pea l s t o m e-ap peals to my welcome, t o my re
sou rces, a n d to my response a n d respo n s i b i l ity. With
the v u l n erab i l ity of h i s eyes, with e m pty hands, with
words expo s i n g h i m to j udgment and to h u m i l iations,
the other exposes h i m self to me as a su rface of suffer
i n g that afflicts me a n d appeals to me i m peratively.
The other can appeal to me because he can o rd e r
m e ; h e can call upon m e beca u se h e can make d e
m a n d s o n m e . T o respond t o the othe r, even t o a n
swer h e r greeti n g, i s a l ready t o recogn ize h e r rights
over m e . Each t i m e I m eet h i s g l ance o r a n swer h e r
words, I reco g nize t h a t the i mp e rative t h a t orders h i s
o r h e r approach commands m e a lso. I can n ot return
h e r glance, extend my h a n d, o r respond to h i s words
without exposing myself to h i s or her judgment a n d
contestation .
The other comes a s a n intruder, and a n authority,
i n to t h e order of n atu re that my thought has repre-

ALPHONSO LINGIS

s ented i n obed i ence to its own i m p e rative ; i nto t h e

p racticabl e field my thought has represented i n a lay
out of means toward e n d s ; a n d i nto the social field
whose eco n o m i c, political, a n d l i n g u i stic laws a n d
codes of stat u s a n d etiq uette my thought h as repre
sented in o b e d i ence to its own i m p e rative . H e or s h e
a p p roaches as t h e su rface of a n o t h e r i m perative. H i s
approach contests my e n v i ro n m ent, my p racticable
layout,-and m y social arena. Her approach com ma n d s
a n u nd e rstand i ng that arises out o f t h e sensitivity that
is afflicted by h e r suffer i n g .
W h e n y o u a r rived a t t h e border, t h e g u a rd a t t h e
gate s a i d the officials h ad stopped wo r k i n g, for t h e
l u nc h - h o u r. Y o u p u l led you r car out o f t h e s u n a n d
wal ked ove r to where t h e re w e r e some pal m l eaf
roofed s hanties beside t h e road u n d e r the trees, to
get somet h i n g to eat you rself. There were eggs, tortil
las, a n d refried beans. You sat down o n a bench while
t h e woman cooked them. A you n g m a n i n camouflage
fatigues asked if he c o u l d see you r n ewspaper, w h i c h
yo u h ad b o u g h t o n the o t h e r side, i n San J ose. The
woman b ro u g h t you r l u nc h . You ate, o pe n ed you r
road m ap, a n d calcu lated the d i stances. You asked the
woma n fo r coffee . N o o n e else was wait i n g to c ross
t h e border. The road d issolved in the b o i l i n g s u n, and
h e re in the s h ad e fl ies b uzzed l azily over rott i n g de
b r i s, s ke l etal dogs lyi n g flat in the weeds pante d . You
looked at t h e sol d i e r read i n g you r newspaper. H i s l ips

T H E I NT R U D E R

were fo r m i n g the words as he read, l i ke a th i rd-grade

c h i l d . You c o u l d d etect o n h i s i mpassive face n o reac
tion to what he read , no j u d gment on the i nterp reta
tions of events he k n ew from h i s com rades who sleep
u n easy n i ghts in the swa m ps a n d forests a n d came
back wou nded o r dead . The skin of his face was not
m o b i l e , n e rvous, l i ke that of j o u rnal i sts and editorial
i sts, b u t weathered l i ke h i de by a c h i l d h ood spent, no
d o u bt, l a b o ri n g to h a rvest coffee , cotton , or sugar on
a fi nca, a n d by months or years spent on guard i n the
cold fog of the cloud forests o r in the swampy low
lands of the Mosqu ito Coast. H i s face and h i s hands
were rough a n d scarred from expo s u re to the hot s u n
a n d t h e cold n ight wi nds, t o t h e brush , a n d t o the
b u l lets of s n i pe rs-b u l lets paid for i n Wash i ngton or
in Saudi A rabia a n d s h i pped in from Miami, a n d from
I s rael , Pol a n d , and C h i na . His clothes were the cam
o u flage d u ngarees and s h i rt of g u e r ri l l as everywhere,
damp with sweat a n d c logged with d u st. H i s shoes
were not m i l itary, but were his own , that is, the rou g h
raw h i d e s hoes o f laborers, o f the land, o f a nyone. He
was sitt i n g near you , a n d said noth i n g to you . Only by
h i s i m passive face, h i s b a red a r m s , h i s clot h i n g , a n d
h i s s h oes, was he exposed t o you . He had s e e n you r
g r i n g o c a r wai t i n g alo n e u nd e r the t ree-you were
one of those whose wealth a n d i m perial pol itics h ad ,
i n the s i x years of the p roxy war, d i sappeared with
b u l lets and m i nes wit h i n these borders 40,027 of h i s
peo p l e , i nc l u d i n g 2,038 wom e n , 1,996 c h i ld re n , 52

ALPH ONSO LINGIS

docto rs, 176 teachers. As it said i n you r newspaper h e

was read i n g .
T h e h o u r was over, t h e b o rd e r officials retu rned,
and you d rove o n . That n i ght, in you r h otel in Mana
g u a, you thought aga i n of h i m, stand i ng there g uard
ing the b o rd e r post that had al ready been several
times attacked by the Contras. Back h o m e, months
later, you conti n ued to read, to put i n perspective a n d
to i nterpret the n u m be rs o f d o l la rs, b u l l ets, bodi es,
a n d the p r i n ci pl es for m u l ated to o rgan ize the n u m
be rs, t o calcu late p ractical d i rectives o u t o f them, a n d
t o make t h o s e d i rectives i ntel l ig i b l e to the writers a n d
persuasive t o o t h e r s . It was to put a n othe r ki nd of d i s
tance between you rself a n d h i m . You r m i n d tracked
down, s u rveyed, and recon noitered l i nes of perspec
tive exte n d i n g across regio n a l groups in confl i ct sepa
rated by m o u ntai n b a r r i e rs or swa m ps in N i ca ragua,
across t h e wal l s a n d pol ice l i n es t h at separated the
fortresses of the rich from t h e s l u m s of those who la
b o r to make them rich, a n d across t h e barricades that
separated the feudal d i ctatorsh i p of the Somozas a n d
the Lati n o soci a l i s m o f the Sand i n i stas ; you retraced
the maps that design the i n te rests of t ra n snational cor
p o rations and those that geopol itical strategi sts lay out
o n tables in chanceries; yo u d rew o u t of the past t h e
l i nes o f perspective t h a t s hape ancient I n d ian m emo
ries a n d t h e archaic forces of v i r i l e p ride in v i l l ages
made of m u d in Centra l A m e rica. You r m i n d takes u p
n u m b e rs a n d d ates a n d places com puted o n t h e d if-

THE I NTRU DER

ferent axes of these ecological ,

socio l ogical ,

eco

n o m i c, geopolitical, a n d cu ltu ral spaces; yo u r m i n d

reprod u ces with i n itself t h e taxo n o m i es a n d t h e gram
m a rs , t h e p ri n ci ples a n d the concl u s i o n s ; you r m i n d
gen e rates i nterpretat i o n s , acco rd i n g t o its own a d hoc
codes, which i nvest t h e for m u l ations with orderi n g
force, j udge, sanction a n d c u l pa b i lize.
Sta n d po i nts, positio n s you r mind had esta b l i s hed
from t h e d i stances of those l i nes of perspective, for
m u l ated i n response to a d i stu rbance, not h i s m ute
voice ; not h i s rational faculty, l i ke you r own , beh i n d
t h e l i ps shapi n g t h e words o f you r newspaper l i ke a
th i rd-grade reade r read i n g a fairy tale from another
land ; n ot his body d i agram m i n g n o stand a n d attitude
before you ; b u t his face m a rked only by the brush in
the swamps a n d the winds in the cloud forests, h i s
h a n d s m is h a n d l ed b y t h e l a n d s u c h that they barely
have the dexterity to turn the pages of a newspaper,
his raw h i d e s hoes one with his fields a n d m o u ntai n s ,
h ave affl i cted o n yo u .

odern

e p i stemology set out to rigorously d isti n

g u i s h t h e real appearance of a thing from its perspec

tival deformatio n s ; its appearances in positio n s set
askew or u ps i de-down ; obscu red or confused appear
ances due to the poor l ighti n g, the i nterve n i n g m e
d i u m, o r t h e d i stance-to segregate t h e real appear
ances from i l l u s o ry o n e s . Then it set out to d e m a rcate
t h e a ppearance given a n d perceived i n a h e re-and
now presence from the t races of its appearance, re
tai n ed by m e m o ry, of a m o ment before and from the
antici patio n s of its a p pe a ra n ce in a moment late r . It
set out to isolate the h ere-a n d - n ow given from the re
lati o n s h i p s between past, p resent, and s u r ro u n d i n g
appearances elabo rated b y t h e synthesizi n g operati o n
of t h e sens i b i l ity that i d e ntifies somet h i n g selfsame i n
a series of a p pe a ra nces extend i ng across a s p a n of
t i m e . This e p i stemology seeks to separate, in t h e m u l
titude of a p pea rances a th i n g extends i n t i m e a n d
space, what i s d u e t o t h e real ity of t h e t h i n g from
what i s d u e to the interve n i n g m ed i u m a n d what is
d u e to the m i n d . It set out to i nventory t h e p u re d ata

ALPHONSO LINGIS

a n d to i d entify i n t h e ret i n a l i mp ri nts what i s d ue to

t h e t h i n g itself.
The contem porary theory of perception declares
t h i s p roject i nfeas i b l e . It i s by convergi n g o u r posture
and sensory su rfaces on someth i n g t h at it i s perceiv
a b l e . A t h i n g red uced to its s i m pl e location in a h e re
now i n stant of presence i s not vi s i b l e o r a u d i b l e ; a n
exte rnal t h i n g i s real b y presenti n g itself i n a wave of
t i m e a n d a fie l d of exte n s i o n , send i n g echoes a n d h e r
alds of itself back i nto t h e past a n d i nto the futu re,
a n d by p roject i n g its form i nto u s as a n o rgan i z i n g d i a
gram for o u r sensory-motor forces. T h i ngs are n ot re
d uced to t h e i r real ity by b e i n g red uced to factual giv
e n s ; the " p u re facts" of e m p i rical observation are
abstracts of i n te rsecti n g scientifi c theories, logics, a n d
effects of tech n o logical e n g i n ee r i n g .
But t h i ngs d o n ot o n ly p roject t h e i r appearances
across d iffe rent perspective s , in d i fferent m e d i a , a n d
o n t h e su rfaces o f o u r s e n s i b i l ity; t h ey also cast shad
ows a n d form scre e n s and phosphorescent vei l s ; thei r
su rfaces d o u b l e u p i nto facades. They generate phan
tasm a l reflections of themselves, refract off h i nts and
l u re s , a n d leave traces.
The s u rface space of the p u rely visual, the ran ge of
h a r m o n i es a n d d i ssonances, t h e labyrinth of vol u p
t u o u s contou rs a n d seductive h o l l ows, t h e ether of
obsessive

presences

and

p hantasm s-these

refrac

tions off t h i ngs are n ot p rivate constructions b u i lt out

of fra g m ents of t h e core t h i n gs o r d i sc o n nected m i -

FAC E S , I D O L S , F ET I S H E S

rages that i l l -foc u sed eyes send to d rift over t h e h u l l

o f t h e p racticabl e wor l d, made o f su bstantial a n d
graspable t h i ngs. The p racticable carpentry of t h i n gs
is itself su spended i n t h e i r tecton i c fau lt l i nes. These
refractions off t h i ngs a re n ot p rivate constructions i n
a space, which, l i ke t h e i nvisi b l e a n d i mpalpable space
in w h i c h the com m u n ity of scientists elaborates a rep
resentation of the world given in p e rception-a space
we do not bel ieve in and can not i n h a bit, a space con
tai ned wit h i n us-exists o n l y by h earsay.
It i s because t h i ngs t u rn p h o s p h o rescent facades o n
t h e l evels a n d h orizons of s e n s u o u s spaces that they
also e n g e n d e r a graspable shape. What t h e re i s can
not be defi ned as a c o re appearance extracted by epis
temological method, w h i c h can exist without its p e r
spectival

appeara nces,

their

d o u b l es,

masks,

and

m i rages. The essences o f th i n gs are n ot c o r e appear

a nces : it b e l o n gs to the essence of s e n s i b l e t h i n gs
that they appear o n ly i n p rofi l es a n d that t h e i r charac
teristics caricatu rize t h e m se lves. A t h i n g is by e n gen
dering i mages of itself, reflections, s hadows, a n d ha
los.

These

can not

be

separated

from

the

core

appearance which wou l d make them poss i b l e, fo r

t h ey m ake what o n e takes to be t h e core appearance
v i s i b l e . The s u rfaces of t h i ngs a re not m o re real than
their facade s ; the real i ty that e n g e n d e rs t h e p h a ntasm
i s e n g e n d e red by it. The monoc u l a r i mages, phan
tasms, l u res, for m s m ad e of s hadows, o m e n s, halos,
and reflections make t h e t h i n gs visible a n d are the vis-

ALPHONSO LINGIS

i b i l ity t h e th i n g s engender. The echoes a n d t h e m u r

m u rs that wand e r off t h i ngs, t h e odors that e m a n ate
fro m them , t h e vo l u pt u o u s conto u rs a n d hol lows of
t h i ngs and of the waves and rai n that caress, the
mossy forests and n octu rnal fragrances that fon d l e
o n e ' s su rfaces a n d penetrate o n e's o rifices, a n d the
n ight they cast about thei r l u m i no u s outcroppi n gs be
long to t h e real ity of t h i n gs a n d make t h e th i n gs visi
b l e a n d real .
The t h i n gs are not o n ly structu res with closed con
tou rs t h at lend them selves to m a n i p u l ation a n d whose
con s i stency constra i n s us. They l u re and th reaten u s ,
s u p po rt a n d o b struct u s , s usta i n a n d d e b i l itate u s , d i
rect u s a n d cal m u s . They e n rapture u s with their sen
suous su bstan ces a n d a l so with thei r l u m i no u s s u r
faces a n d t h e i r phosphorescent facades, t h e i r halos,
t h e i r rad i a n ce a n d t h e i r resonances.
It i s by p resenti n g ou rselves, exposed visibly and
palpably i n t h e l i g ht, that we engender the m o n stro u s
shadow t h a t precedes us a n d soaks i nto t h e g ro u n d
u n d e r o u r feet. T h e professor w h o e nters t h e c lass
roo m the first day h as been p receded by the l egend
o r myth of h i m se l f which t h e students n ow see mate ri
alizi n g before t h e i r eyes . They adj u st p ract i ca l ly to t h e
l evel o f h i s vo ice a n d t o the a r e n a o f h i s move m e nts ;
he k n ows t h ey are l o o k i n g at the personage a n d fits
h i s p e rson i nto it as he e nters t h e room . He wi l l use
t h i s professorial mask as a fet i s h , to i nt i m i date them .

FAC E S , I D O LS , F ET I S H E S

They seek to penetrate b e n eath t h i s m as k , a n d t h e i r

look fi n d s the colors a n d contou rs o f a caricature. If
we recognize our acq uai ntances i n t h e d rawi n gs m ade
by the caricatu rist, it i s beca u se our see i n g was a l
ready n ot a n atom ical b u t caricatu rizi n g . The percep
tion that looks u nd e r the mask fi n d s another, mon
strou s m a s k ; the students see the pedant u nd e r the
pedago g u e . The look rebo u n d s between layers of
d o u bles that the face e ngenders. When the professor
i nspects his face in a m i rror, his eyes are caught be
tween t h e professorial mask a n d t h e pedantic carica
ture. When in the c lassroom he slouches over his pa
pers and stifles a yaw n , he i s not s i m ply s h r i n k i n g
back i nto a bare a n atomy m oved b y fatigue, h e is agi
tat i n g his masks d i sdai nfu l l y o r i ro n ically.
When a face ente rs a roo m where people are gath
e red , borne exposed l i ke an idol over a u n ifo rmed
a n d coded body, m a rked with black a n d scarlet paint
a n d adorned with flowers a n d the p l u m es of dead
b i rd s , the glances that tu rn to it lower o r move
o b l i q uely across it. It wo u l d b e hard to j u stify n o r
m a l iz i n g t h e practical i m perative, h a rd to argue that
the face whose clearly and d i st i n ctly exposed colors
a n d whose fi rmly grasped carpentry is most palpably
evi d e n t i s t h e essence in w h i c h u n p racticable forms of
that face are absorbed , l i k e m o n o c u l a r i m ages in the
real t h i n g . A face i s a face by not b e i n g a rubbery s u b
stance to be grasped a n d palpated o r a s k u l l to be
h a n d l ed g i n gerly like a costly china bowl ; it i s a face

ALPHO N SO L I N G I S

by com m a n d i n g t h e downcast eyes that tou c h it with

respect; it is a face by p resenti n g the coded mask of
a social d ra m a . Mouth and c heeks, by i d o l i z i n g them
selves, are n ot jaws a n d jowls-or rathe r, jaws a n d
jowls a re the caricature t h a t the m o uth a n d cheeks
d o u b le i nto . I s not the i d o l atrous look that reveres
a n d p rofanes the face the n o rm, of which the a n atom
i cal a n d p racticable scrutiny i s a deviant? The face is
t h e p lace of exposu re a n d v u l n e ra b i l ity of t h e o rgan
i s m ; one does not look at feath e ry c rystals in the
m o i st m e m b ra n e of the eye with the focus of a jew
e l e r's eye w h i c h g u ides t h e p reci s i o n movement of h i s
adju sti n g h a n d s ; o n e look softens before t h e eyes of
another, one's m o b i l izati o n is d i sa r m e d ; v u l n e ra b i l ity
and exposu re o r d e r tenderness.
The face of t h e other is the s u rface of an o rgan ism,
a su rface u po n w h i c h t h e a n atom i cal i n s pection can
fol low t h e m uscle contract i o n s, n e rvous spasms, and
b lood c i rcu lation in t h e depths of that orga n i sm . The
face of a noth e r i s a n expressive su rface, a su rface
u p o n which the signs designati n g objects a n d objec
tives beyon d can be read . The face of another i s an
i n d i cative s u rface, u po n w h i ch are spread i n d i ces of
t h e m oods a n d states of m i n d, the c u r iosity, d o u bt,
s kepti c i s m, b o redom of t h e other. The face of a n othe r
is a s u rface u po n w h i c h o n e senses d i rect i o n s and d i
rectives that o r d e r m e ; w h e n another faces o n e, an
i m p e rative su rfaces. The face of a n ot h e r i s a landscape

FACE S , I DO LS , FETI S H ES

of conto u rs w h i c h are i n e rtly exp ressive : h eavy, over

hangi n g b row; aq u i l i n e o r i nfant i l e n ose ; t h i ck, carnal
l i ps ; weaseled o r sto l i d ch i n ; which the othe r, fix i n g
h i s d ark-eyed stare o r fl utte r i n g h e r eyelashes wet
with tears, l earns to m an euver for effects .
The face of a noth e r also d o u b l es u p i nto an idol a n d
a fetis h . T o raise h i s o r h e r face before t h e world i s
to move a m o n g the othe rs a n d the t h i ngs as an idol
spread i n g its l ight a n d warmth over them; to set his
o r h e r face over a n d agai nst t h e others i s to mate rial
ize as a feti s h .
Sove reign a n d solita ry, t h e i d o l g l ows with its own
l ight and radi ates stra n ge li ght and warmth about it
self. It does n ot signal a n d give m essages ; t h e idol
gives force, gives n ot for aski n g, and gives without re
q u i ri n g a n yth i n g in retu rn .
The fet i s h is a cari catu re, n ot of the essential real ity,
b u t of t h e idol . With t h e force of its downcast a n d
o p a q u e col d ness, it s p reads b lack l ight a n d fevers
about itself. A fetish is u sed to obtai n somet h i n g o n e
n eeds o r wants; it i s put forth i n t h e service o f o n e ' s
fears o r one's c u p id ity. The i d o l i s n o b l e ; the fetish
i s serv i l e .
The t e r m s idol a n d fet i s h a re m o re often a p p l i e d to
t h i ngs made of n o b l e or base material, to which a
face, d e rived from t h e h u ma n vi sage, is give n . The
face that advances as a n i dol, before which t h e eyes
lowe r, tu rns i nto a mask and a caricat u re ; the idol
made of ston e o r gold m etam o rphoses i nto a face that

ALPHONSO LINGIS

keeps watch . But if t h e appearance of the h u m a n face

can be cast on a t h i n g , d o u b l i n g it up i nto an i d o l a nd
a fet i s h , that is beca u se the h u m a n face fi rst d o u b l es
itself u p i n to i d o l a n d fetis h .
The face , locus o f exp ression a n d o f val uatio n , i s
also locus o f self-va l orizat i o n-idol izatio n . A n d , i n a
caricatu re of i d o l izatio n , it a l so fetish izes itself.
The m o d e r n e p i stemology we h ave i nvoked has to
say that the face of the other p resents itself as a p e r
ceived datu m-si m p l e patches of c o l o r . The val u e t h e
perceiver s e e s i n it i s a p re d icate h e assig n s to it. T h e
relati o n s h i p between a b e i n g a n d its val u e , i n c l u d i n g
t h e relati o n s h i p between a perceived carpentry of a
face and t h e idol a n d the fetis h it d o u b l es i nto, i s
taken to b e a p re d icative relatio n s h i p a n d i s stud ied i n
t h e g r a m m a r o f axiologica l p redication . Mode r n epis
temology does not take t h i s val u e as i n h e rent i n t h e
face o n e perceive s ; i n stead, t h e val u e i s a way o f ran k
i n g it with regard to other faces a n d othe r t h i n gs . T h e
p e rceiver wou l d possess a system of val ue-terms
good-bad , u sefu l-use less, th reaten i n g- reass u ri ng, etc .
-with w h i c h h e com pares a n d o pposes a l l t h i n gs
a n d t h e face of a n ot he r .
But d o e s n ot the face of itself d o u b l e i nto idol a n d
fetish ? T h e p rod uctio n o f val u e-ter m s d o e s n o t s i m p ly
i n d i cate o r i nform an idol izatio n , but i ntensifies i t .
The ascription of p re d icate terms to itself t o d i st i n -

FAC E S , I DO LS , FETI S H E S

g u i s h or o ppose itself to others does n ot s i m ply i n d i

cate o r i nform, b u t intensifies a fetis h izatio n . T h e val
ue-te rms with which

it i l l u m i n ates with m arvel o u s

l i ght a n d ardor o r sp reads ten e b ro u s fevers over t h e

t h i n gs a n d faces a b o u t itself, a r e terms fi rst formed i n
t h i s idol izat i o n , a n d feti s h izatio n , with w h i c h a face
forms .
Let u s l o o k t o t h e genesis o f t h e val u e-ter m s that
express i d ea l ization or, we s h a l l say, idolization and
fetish izatio n .
Epistemology observes, given i n c u l t u re , d i ve rse
sets of val ue-terms. It q u ic kly says "val ue-system s " ,
because when o n e l o o k s a t i n d ividuals applyi n g these
terms to t h e t h i n gs a n d people about them, it seem s
that eval uati on is ran k i n g , a n d that it establ i shes gra
dati o n . It seems that value-system s are dyad ic sys
tem s ; for every val u e-term there is its o p posite : good
bad , j u st- u n j u st, vi rtu o u s-vic i o u s , beautifu l-ugly, a n d
u sefu l - u se less . These t e r m s s e e m t o be constructed as
specificatio n s of the most extreme k i n d of oppositio n ,
that o f positive a n d n egative . T h i s absol ute opposition
would be what makes them i ntri n s i cally systematic;
the mean i n g of the one can seem to be the s i m pl e
negatio n o f t h e other. T h e axes o f k i n s h i p-male-fe
m a l e a n d parent-ch i l d-are not oppositional ; the co
existence of a m u ltipl i city of needy h u mans in a l i m
ited

field

of

resou rces

is,

no

m o re

than

the

coexi stence of a m u lt i p l icity of fi sh o r baboon s , not

ALPHONSO LINGIS

i n t r i nsically o p positio n a l . It seems to us that t h e val u e

terms in use are intri ns i ca l l y oppositional systems a n d
that they i ntro d u ce o ppositio n s i nto the goods a n d ac
tivities they eval uate . A m o n g the other g regario u s a n i
m a l s, even wolves a n d rats a n d t h e beasts of p rey,
their

g regario us

nat u re

p revents

com petition

for

goods , territory , o r prestige from beco m i n g m u rd e r

o u s . B u t i n the h u m a n species, gregario u s a n i m al s tor
t u re and wage war o n t h e i r own k i n d in the n a m e of
val u e s ; val u e-oppositio n s make one see one's com
petitor as an opponent, to b e a n n i h i late d .
But then val u e-terms do n o t s i m ply d i scri m i nate a n d
c lassify. T h e i r specifi c operation i s n ot that of i n
form i n g b y d e l i n eati n g (positing a representation by
n egat i n g, defi n i ng it by o p posi n g it to oth e r represen
tation s) . They are

forces .

Forces

not

react i n g

to

b o u n d ari es, b u t act i n g on force s . An affirmative val u a

tion i s a confi r m atio n . When w e say t o som e o n e,
" H ow beautifu l you are ! " t h i s sayi n g does not wo rk
o n the o n e to whom it i s said as a s i m p l e recogn itio n
o f what h e i s a l ready, a re-cognition o f what h e al
ready k nows ; it s u m m o n s forth a n d i ncites h i s fo rce s .
S h e w i l l s m i l e a g ratu ito u s, rad iati n g s m i l e a n d a b l u s h
w i l l c o l o r h e r face m o re beautifu l ly ; s h e wi l l move a n d
w i l l s p e a k sti l l m o re beautifu l ly i n t h e space m a d e l u
m i n o u s b y t h e rainbow-colored word arc h i n g over it.
When we say to someone, " H ow s i cko you are ! " he
wi l l o utdo h i m self to gri mace sti l l m ore sickly and
m u tter some sti l l m o re sick retort. There are people

FAC E S , I D O L S , F ET I S H E S

who never, o r rarely, say " H ow beautifu l you are ! "

n ot because they, u n l i ke the rest of u s, n ever see ev
e ry waitress, every b u s-d river, eve ry student, every
pass i n g stranger as attractive or u nattractive ; o r be
cause t h ey take seriously Jesus'

recom me ndatio n,

" J u d ge n ot a n d you s h a l l n ot be judged"; but because

they are all too aware of what you do when you say
that. All too aware that when you say that to you r wife
it's a p l oy or a compensati o n th rown h e r way, that
when you say that to a m a n you i dentify you rself as a
closet p ervert, that when you say that to a student you
are l ay i n g you rself open to a sexual-harass ment su it.
H u me i ntroduced a new way of ran k i n g i d eas ; h e
ran ked sensory i deas a n d abstract i deas accord i n g to
strength a n d weakness . B u t he then s u b o rd i n ated h i s
new ran k i n g t o t h e o l d o n e b y val u i ng t h e stron g i m
p ressions from t h e senses as m o re verid ical t h a n the
fai nt abstract i mages that are their afte r-effects, j u st as
Descartes ran ked ideas accord i ng to their clarity and
d i st i n ctness o n ly to see in the clarity a n d d i st i n ctness
of i d eas the i n d ex of t h e i r truth . For N i etzsc h e, axio
logical d i scou rse is com pletely separated from apo
p hantic d i sc o u rse. The beautifu l words beautify, t h e
n o b l e words e n n o b l e, the stron g words strengthen,
the healthy words vita l i z e ; t h e ugly words s u l ly, the
servi le words d ebase those who speak them b u t also
those to whom t h ey are spoken, the wea k wo rds
e m ascu l ate and d e b i l i tate, and the sick wo rds contam
i n ate. They d o n ot o n ly i l l u m i nate forms in the m i nd

..

ALPHONSO LINGIS

of t h e o n e who u n de rstan d s them ; they, l i ke laughter

heard that q u ickens a n d tears that tro u b l e o n e, e n e r
gize o r u n ne rve t h e body i n which they reso u n d . It i s
beca u se we s e e that o u r flatter i n g o r s l a n d e r i n g wo rds
color and stiffen the corporeal su bstance of the o n e
t o w h o m w e add ress them, even w h i l e h i s o r h e r m i nd
rejects t h e m, t h at we bel ieve o u r blessings and c u rses
alter t h e cou rse of t h i n gs, even though our professed
m echan i s m has l o n g s i n ce isolated nat u re in

itself

from the enchantment of o u r voice.

Axio logical d i scou rse i s not one language s u bo rd i
nated t o o r a l o n gside o f apophantic d i scou rse ; i t i s
t h e p ri m al o n e . The val u e-terms a r e n o t o n ly t h e m o st
i m portant words of l a n g u age, t h ey are the stars about
w h i c h t h e othe r conste l lations of language turn . Lan
g u age i s n ot f u n d a m e ntal ly a means of i d e ntificat i o n,
b u t a means of consecratio n . An i n fant is d rawn i nto
l a n g uage, n ot because of the i m po rtance of say i n g,
" It's t h e jam I wan t, not the b u tter," which he d oes
not n eed words for, b u t because of t h e forces in the
words L o ve a n d Pretty Baby a n d Good a n d Yes. It is
t h ro u g h val u ative words that t h e othe rs i ntensify t h e
world for h i m : good t o eat, b a d t o put i n you r m o uth,
good warm bath, bad fi re, p retty kitty, vicious dog,
d a n ge ro u s street. The m ost n o b l e wo rds i n langu age
are the m o st archa i c ; Homer o n ly mentions th ree col
o rs in a l l his epics-t h i s i s n ot explai n ed by his b l i nd
n ess, becau se n o n e of t h e e p i c l i te ratu re of I nd ia,
C h i na, t h e M i d d l e East, or t h e Yucatan mention a ny

FAC E S , I D O L S , F ET I S H E S

more. But we have hardly added m uch to t h e gamut

of adjectives a n d epithets H o m e r u sed to exalt h e roes.
With the mal ice that u n d e rstan d s what had been set
up as the h ig hest for m of life by what was taken as the
l owest, N i etzsche u nd e rsta nds t h e most n o b le form of
language, t h e language of val ues, as an atavisti c s u r
vival of i nsect cries. Of cou rse the l an guage of g regari
o u s i nsects, a nts a n d bees, i s representational, i s gov
e rned by corresponden ce with the layout of thi ngs,
a n d is a k i n es i cs of truth . But language beg i n s with
t h e evo l ution of o rgans fo r vocal ization among i n s ects
n ot social ized i nto colon i es, whose vocal izatio n s con
sist e nti rely of a seductive c h ant. Their o rgans for vo
cal izati o n : scaly feet, r u b bed t h o raxes, a n d v i b rati n g
wi n gs, rad i ate out a p e r i o d i c, e n d l essly repetitive, vi
b ratory chant whose repetitive cod i n gs a re not repre
senti n g, p ro d u c i n g repre s entations and i d ea l ity, b u t
reiterat i n g

and

reaffi rm i n g

the

forces

of

beauty,

health, a n d s u pe rabu n dant vital ity. T h e i r voca l ization

i s a g ratu i to u s d i sc h a rge of excess e n e rgies a n d the
solar chant of expe n d itu re without retu rn .
Val uatio n s a re gifts of fo rce given to the forces of
t h i n gs . It is with forces, we l l i n g u p i n o neself, that l i fe
confronts a n d opposes, b ut t h e reby i n cites, othe r
forces. Th e stron g sensatio n s, those with which t h e
force o f l ife confronts w h a t c o m e s t o encou nter it, are
n ot passive affects of p leas u re a n d pai n l eft o n l ife by
the i m pact of t h i n gs that pass. The stron g sensations
a re those with w h i c h an active sensib i l ity g reets what

ALPHONSO LINGIS

comes with l a ughter a n d tears, b l essi n g a n d c u rsi n g .

T h e c u rs i n g a n d t h e tears a r e themselves forces. The
laughter a n d t h e tears q u icken a n d tro u b l e t h e land
scapes, the b l es s i n g a n d t h e c u rses ennoble a n d un
h i n ge t h e cou rse of t h e wor l d . The lau ghter is i n d e
pendent of the tears a n d comes before t h e tears ; t h e
b l essi n g comes before t h e c u rs i n g . I n the h a n d s made
for b l essi n g, there i s m o re force than i n hands t h at
c l aw at t h i ngs u n relentingly d riven by n eed and want.
The recoi l with which l ife d iscovers its wea k ness, a n d
c a n resentful ly wi l l t o weaken a n d appropriate, comes
seco n d . Life's b l e s s i n g exten d s over a u n iverse made
of frag m e n ts, ridd les, a n d d readful accid ents ; it ex
tends over them, n ot a nova of light i n which t h ey
cou l d be c o m p re h e nded as o n e whole, t h e i r riddl es
solved, t h e i r conti n ge n ci es revealed as i n stantiat i o n s
o f u n iversal a n d n ecessary law-but exten d s over t h e
dawn and t h e m ists a rai n bow o f b l essi n g t h a t a frag
m entary u n iverse flo u ri s h and d ivide yet m o re, a u n i
verse o f r i d d l e s exten d its e n igmas yet further, a n ac
c i d e ntal u n iverse tu rn ete r n a l ly in i m pe rm a n e n ce a nd
tra n s i ence .
Those who give t h e forces of val u e are those w h o
h ave t h e m, who have fi rst given them t o themse lves.
The val ue-terms, these new forces, o r i g i n ate i n those
healthy with a su perab u n dant health : t h e passionate,
the sovereign, the eagles, t h e Aztecs. The p r i m a ry,
pos itive a n d active, val ue-te rms d o not acq u i re t h e i r

F A C E S , I D O L S , F ET I S H E S

mean i n g i n the gram m a r of i n d i cative o r i nformative

speech acts, but in speech acts of the exclamatory
fo rm . They do not fu n ction to i d e ntify, to hold as
identical, b u t to intensify. O n e arises from sleep,
charged with e ne rgies to squander, o n e greets the
dawn danci n g over t h e trees, o n e greets the visions
a n d m i rages of t h e dawn, a n d the abori g i n e in o n e
exclai m s : H ow good it i s t o be alive ! The good ness
o n e bespeaks i s a good ness one feels, wit h i n, i n the
fee l i n g of excess e n ergy, e ne rgy to waste, that i s af
fect i n g itself a n d i ntensifyi n g itself with each dance
step o n e makes i n t h e pas d e d e u x that t h e dawn i s
choreogra p h i n g . O n e says it because o n e feel s it. And
i n sayi n g it, o n e i s not s i m ply report i n g o n it; one
fee l s good a n d feel s sti l l better for t h e say i n g of it.
The good n ess su rges with i n a n d transfi g u res one's
su rfaces of expos u re . O n e steps i nto one's bath room ;
one's glance plays i n t h e i n fi n ite echoes of one's na
ked body s h i m meri n g in all the m i rrors l i k e a q u etzal
b i rd, a n d o n e m u rm u rs, H ow beautiful I a m ! O n e
c o u l d o n ly u nd e rsta n d what " H ow beautifu l I a m ! "
means i n the artist fee l i n g for o n e ' s s i n ews a n d con
tou rs a n d carnal ity; i n t h e selective, fram i n g, a n d glo
rifyi n g artist eye that captu res a n d h o ld s, as worth
conte m p l at i n g for years, an e p h e m e ral event of n a
tu re :

the s h i m m e ri n g a n d gratu ito u s grace of the

m o r n i n g m i rage of o neself i n the m i rrors. And i n say

i n g that, o n e feels sti l l m o re beautifu l . O n e sees the
beauty one's m u rm u r m akes reverberant in t h e s h i m -

ALPHONSO LINGIS

m e r i n g i mage of one's p u n k m u g, one's d i rt-far m e r

ski n . After the m o r n i n g workout p u m p i n g i ro n i n t h e
g y m t o m uscle exhaustion, o n e b o u n d s u p t h e steps
to the street o u,tside babb l i n g, How healthy I a m ! O n e
cou l d o n ly u nd e rstan d what " H ow h ealthy I a m ! "
m ea n s i n t h e force t h at wou l d produce that exclama
tion in o neself. This health i s not a n egative concept,
defi ned by the n egation of its n e gative, l i k e t h e capi
tal i st w h o learns from the docto r's report that so far
no u l ce r, n o dege n erative h eart d isease, no cholester
o l -clogged a rteries ; therefore you a re healthy. This
health i s t h e feel i n g of force to squander gratu ito u s ly
on barbe l l s, on s hadow boxi n g, a n d on raci n g t h e
deer th rough t h e forests a n d t h e zebras across the sa
van n a h .
These exclamatory speech acts, i n which t h e val u e
terms a r ise, a r e d i sconti n uo u s vortices of force that
red o u b l e the s p i ral i n g vital ity in which they arise .
They are not a r b i t ra ry decrees of a l egislative su bjec
tivity i mpos i n g its own o rd e r and ran k i n g on a m o r
p h o u s a n d n e u t ral a n d i n d ifferent material . The pot
b e l l i ed b u s i n ess-su ited acad e m i c can l ift up a glass i n
t h e e nd-of-term d e pa rtmental l u ncheon a n d ejacu late,
" I, o n e of t h e few, f u n ctionary of t h e celestial b u reauc
racy, h ow kalos k' agathos I a m ! " : it doesn't take; h i s
vo ice r i n gs h o l low i n t h e m u ffled co i l s o f h i s s l u ggish
i ntesti nes stuffed with clots of cheese a n d cheap de
p a rtmental w i n e .
T h e positive value-terms d o n ot acq u i re t h e defi-

FAC E S , I DO L S , F ET I S H E S

n iteness of thei r m ea n i n g from t h e i r defi n it i o n s i n a

dyad ic system . The good n ess there, t h e s u perabun
dance, t h e gratu i ty, t h e excess over a n d beyon d being
there, is n ot a d i st i n ctive category that gets its m ean
ing from its opposition to the reverse category.
The p r i mary positive val u e-terms a re not com pa ra
tive; t h ey do not fu nction to d i fferentiate an observed
datum from its opposite, n o r do they fu n ction to re
port on a com pa rative degree of change from a p r i o r
state o n e i s recal l i n g . W h e n o n e excl a i m s, H o w beau
tifu l I a m ! o n e i s not n otici n g t h e d ifferences between
what the m i rrors s h i m m e r and what a m e n tal p hoto
g raph of t h e acned adolescent o n e once was s h ows ;
o n e does not m ean t h at w h i l e the angle of my v i r i l e
jaw is n o t u p t o t h at o f t h e Marlboro Man, my gut i s
n ot as flabby as 5 3 % of the o t h e r real estate agents
and acad e m ics. Whe n one excla i m s, How healthy I
am ! , the m ea n i n g o n e k nows i n it is not dete r m i ned
by comparative observation of t h e exhau sted a n d the
stunted o n e conte m p l ates i n t h e rat-race of t h e wage
slaves g l a n c i n g at t h e i r watches with anxi ety-fi l l ed
eyes i n t h e street b elow; a n d o n e is not s i mply re
cord i ng that, u n l i ke yesterday, t h e re were no shooti n g
pai n s i n the r h o m boids even after t e n reps o n the ca
b l e row. When o n e exc l a i m s, H ow good it is to be
al ive ! o n e is n ot com p a r i n g one's b i g s o l i d body with
some m iserable i mage of a c l ot of g ray j e l l y one was
before the c h eap condom b u rst t h at n i g h t o n the o l d
man . The val ue-te r m s are n o t d i sc r i m i natio n s of d iffer-

A L P H ON S O L I N G I S

ence wit h i n a field m a i nta i ned by m e m o ry. They are

not effects t h at depend on the powe r of m e m o ry b u t
p ro d u ctions t h a t p rod u ce t h e power of forgett i n g . T h e
woman from P u e rto R i c a n H a r l e m who .steps out from
t h e gym a n d p u shes h e r h ard thighs down Fifth Ave
n u e between t h e l i m p Long I s l a n d d ebutantes is not
rem e m be r i n g c h i l d h ood dysente ries and ringworms
a n d d i n ne rs of boi l ed spaghetti ; s h e k n ows s h e always
was h ealthy, was conceived i n health by h e r whore
m ot h e r o pe n i n g h e r l o i n s o n e n i g ht to some dock
worke r . The Lao youth w h o catches sight of h i s d i rt
s k i n ned p u n k m u g b l az i n g l i ke a comet i n the m i r
rored wal l s of t h e Bangkok d i sco a n d maliciously pa
rades before the raven o u s and fevered eyes of t h e
rich wh ite tou ri sts l i k e a p ri nce before s laves i s n ot
rem e m be ri n g t h e stu n te d boy n o body deigned to n o
tice i n the m u c k of t h e p l a ntatio n ; h e k n ows now h e
always was as s p l e n d i d as t h e panth e rs that descended
by n i gh t to p rowl the plantation m a n o r .
The positive a n d active val ue-ter m s do n o t acq u i re
thei r u se with i n language-games which are ways of so
cial ized

life,

c o m m uni cation

system s .

Presenting

themselves in an i ncantatio n , i d o l s are m ute to the

oth e rs . These terms a re not fixed i n a system of oppo
sition to t h e i r negatio n s . For those of n o b l e sens i b i l ity
d o n ot real ly h ave a sen se of t h e bad , t h ey d o n ot
real l y u nd e rstand the m o r b i d , t h e c ring i n g , the ran
c o r o u s , a n d the cyn i ca l . They look u po n them w i t h a
look of pity that does n ot penetrate too deeply a n d

FAC E S , I D O L S , F ET I S H E S

that al ready fee l s conta m i n ated by that pity. Bad for

them means i l l-favored, u nfo rtu nate. T h e i r terms are
not war-cries and slogans in a combat agai nst the oth
ers; t h e i r vitality, health , beauty, and joy i s n ot th reat
e n ed by t h e m u ltitudes of t h e i m potent, a n d they
have n ot made themselves fee l joyo u s by i nventoryi n g
t h e w h i n es a n d com plai nts o f others. They avo i d
them, a n d a r e u n j u st to t h e m , out o f i g n o ra n ce .
There is n ot o n e dyadi c system , where the positive
val ue-terms are d efined and posited by t h e i r nega
tions ; the d e n i g rat i n g terms are reactive, come sec
o n d, and consecrate not excessive but morbid forces
of l ife .
The servi l e are those who u n de rstand evi l , a n d thei r
m o ra l ity i s b u i lt a ro u n d the notion o f evi l . T h e i r cen
tra l concept is this reactive a n d m a l ignant concept.
For by evi l , they u nd e rstand noth i n g else than the
very i mage of those with sove rei g n i n st i n cts, who are
felt to be d an ge ro u s by their own i mpotence, a n i m
age refracted a n d degraded i n t h e acid o f thei r ran co r .
The evi l o n e f o r them is the o n e who i s stron g, that
is, violent; beautiful, that i s, vai n ; healthy, that i s , las
civi o u s ; n o bl e, that is, d o m i neeri n g .
T h i s b e l l igerent concept i s n o t a s i m pl e o p posite
produced by negat i n g the n o b l e concept of goo d . The
specter of evi l i s a stron g a n d obsessive i mage, not
s i m p ly a vac u o u s n egati o n ; it i s the powerful creation
of powers of weakness that h ave recoiled from con-

ALPHONSO L I N G I S

frontation a n d acc u m u l ate i n rancor. T h e i r eyes are

fixed on the others , on the sove rei g n ones, and they
u n de rstan d t h e m m o re deeply than t h ey k n ow them
selve s ; they are a b l e to e nvision in advance the whole
pictu re of t h e su m ptu o u s a n d horrifyi n g flower of
what i s germ i n at i n g in them . T h e i r v i s i o nary a rtistry
sees the J ezebel i n the 4-year-old who pai nts h i s l i ps
with

his

mothe r's

l i psti ck,

the s n ickerings of t h e

world-d issolvi n g Cartesian evi l gen i u s i n a b u n c h of

u n ru ly kids in t h e ghetto schoo l , t h e rapist-cu m-axe
m u rderer in the stro ng arms of the c h i ca n o try i n g to
h itch a ride on the h i g hway.
It is t h e i d ea of good that is for them a pale after
effect of t h e i r sense of evi l . They do not k n ow it i n
t h e i r own i nsti ncts a n d t h e i r own joys b u t o n t h e i r
faces whose fearf u l a n d rapac i o u s gri m aces e c h o t h e
words of the n o b l e . I n t h e i r l i p s , health m ea n s c l o s u re
from the contag i o n s of the world, beauty means e n
c l o s u re i n t h e u n ifo r m s o f servicea b i l ity i n the h e r d ,
goodness m e a n s prod u ctivity, a n d h appi ness m e a n s
contentment w i t h t h e content appropriate d . It i s we
who l ive t h e good l ife, t h ey say. But th is good ness i s
itself a b e l l igere n t term , n o t a n affi rmation o f gratu
ito u s sovereignty, but a d e m a n d put on others.
The i r fo rces, d i s e n gaged from the substances of
t h i n gs , recoil upon themselves and t u rn a s u rface of
c l o s u re to t h e world On this s u rface set agai nst t h e
:
o t h e r s , t e i mage o f sovereignty is reflected a n d c o n

secrated w i t h ran corous a n d rapaci o u s force as a de-

FAC E S , I D O LS , F ET I S H ES

mand put on t h e others. They face others represent

i n g val u e s , face oth ers with t h e i r fetishes, thei r faces
d o u b l ed i nto feti s h e s .
W e have been u s i n g words l i ke notion, concept,
idea of good, of health , stre n gth , vital ity, evil , a n d
contentment. But t h e val ue-te rms do not real ly desig
nate concepts, forms which conta i n content o r matri
ces which

d iagram

essences. They are

not terms

which get their use and their defi nition from a struc
tu re of terms in systematic oppositio n , with which i n
d i v i d u a l s d eterm i n e a n d com m u n icate thei r conceptu
ally

appre h e n ded

i dentities

in

opposition

to

one

another. The serv i l e sense o f evi l i s n o t prod u ced by

s i m p ly u s i n g the gram m atical o perator of negation on
the content of the n o b le a n d e n n o b l i n g concept of
goo d ; t h e s pecter it i nvokes arises to consecrate a n d
hal low a ran co ro u s recoi l o f l i fe that feeds o n itself
and i ntensifies itself. It i s not a n i nstru ment in a sys
tem of com m u n i catio n ; it is a war-cry in an assault
that advances by i ntell igence, that i s , by c u n n i n g , de
viousness, d eceit, and e ntrapment. It does not com
m u n icate; it conta m i n ates and spreads by com p l icity.
Every val ue-term i s a consecration of an excess force
by which a l iv i n g o rgan i s m d i s e n gages from its i nte
gration in the forces of its sett i n g and from its su bjec
tion to the reprod uctive i m perative that su bordi n ates
it to the gen u s . The health that i s not si m p l y d eter
m i ned a n d defi ned by t h e set of tests t h e doctor ad-

ALPHONSO LINGIS

m i n isters to d etect t h e sym ptom s of d i sease a n d or

gan i c and psyc h i c d egeneratio n , the h ealth that is
i nvo ked in a n exu ltant fee l i n g of power i s a n excess
k n own in the squanderi n g with w h i c h it is conti n u al ly
rep l e n i s h e d . It is the health that does n ot characterize
one's fu n ctio n a l i n tegrity, but is, essential ly, many
k i n ds of h ealth , k n own a n d yet u n k n own : the h ealth
of satyrs and g u e r ri l la s . It i s a p ledge and not a report,
it is the trajecto ry of a d a n c i n g star born of a c h u r n i n g
chaos

of

excess

fo rces.

The

beauty-th e artist c o m p u l s i o n

l ife
in

that

val ues

its

its o rigi n al fo rm,

which, accordi n g to N i etzsche, works with t h e n o b lest

a n d rarest c l ay and o i l , its own flesh a n d b l ood-jetti
sons its n atu ra l forms and the fo rms its artistry h as
m ad e seco nd nature, for the sake of u n k n own d reams
a n d d an ce s . Were it to fix its sense of beauty o n forms
now acq u i red o r contracted, m u m m ifying them, t h ey
wou l d turn i nto t h e gri m aces of a fet i s h . The l i fe that
val u es veracity opens each of its a u ste rely-won convic
tions to every contestation to come. The l i fe that val
ues respo n s i b i l ity sees every response m a d e a s a set
tlement

not

respo n s i b l e

enough,

that

has

to

be

su bjected to sti l l f u rther d e m a n d s .

The exclamatory speech acts that p o s i t val ue-terms
are i n tr i n s i ca l l y d i sconti n uo u s a n d con secrate mo
m ents of exp e n d i t u re at a loss. Val ues are terms i n
t h e n a m e o f w h i c h riches a n d capacities, assets a n d
secu rities, edifices a n d i n stitutio n s acc u m u lated a n d
conserved

through

months,

years,

centu ries,

are

FAC E S , I D O L S , F ET I S H E S

squand e red . They arise n ot i n com p u l s i o n s to real isti

c a l l y adj u st to real i ty, b u t i n c o m p u l s i o n s to d i scharge
one's forces and resou rces, in the exultati o n of t h e
s o l a r c o n s u m mation flari n g u p i n t h e i m m en sities of
the cos m i c voi d s .
Val u e-terms, then , a r e n o t designati o n s o f a fixed
order of fo rms that transce n d space and t i m e . They
do n ot intro d u ce i nto the beg i n n i ng l ess, e n d l ess, fl ux
of e m p i rical events a factor of abid i n g permanen ce
a n d conservatio n . They are n ot ideal izing ideas; t h ey
do not function to i deal ize o neself, to fix one's pres
ence in an a b i d i n g , selfsame form-an ideal presence .
That is why we use t h e term i d o l iz i n g : an idol exists
in apparitions w h i c h do n ot fix the o rd e r of a com mon
d i scou rs e , but g l ows with its own l ight that rad i ates
l ight about itself a n d gives force , gives not for a s k i n g ,
gives w i t h o u t req u i ri n g anyth i n g i n retu rn .
Val ue-terms

are

not

u n de rstood

in

m ental

acts

which operate t h e systems of i nfo rmation a n d w h i c h

d e l i neate t h e m ea n i n g o f o n e t e r m m o re a n d m o re
decisively by d e l i n eati n g m o re exactly the m ea n i n g of
the other term s ; t h ey spread by contagion a n d spread
contag i o n . The war-cry with w h i c h the healthy, t h e
powerfu l , t h e p r o u d , a n d the joyo u s a r e designated a s
evi l d o e s not convey i nfo rmatio n ; it i nfects the lan
g uage a n d it is picked u p l i ke a vi ru s . When President
Ronald

Reagan

i dentified

President

Dan iel

O rtega

Saavedra as a "two-bit d i ctator i n designer glasses , "

h e spread a n o l d m a n ' s ran co ro u s castrat i n g h atred o f

ALPHONSO LINGIS

a you n g revol utionary to m i l l io n s , confirm i n g them i n

thei r b e l l igere n t i g n o rance. When a d ivemaster as
cend i n g from the Java Sea reports to the waiti n g boat,
" N a r ked ! 11 the rapture of the deep s p reads to t h e m ,
a l ready, as t h ey d o n wet su its a n d b u c k l e weight belts.
One d escribes, as d escriptively as possi b l e , even
cl i n ical ly, t h e scene in the Bangkok cabaret where the
seventeen-year-old Lao waiter s u d d e n l y c l i m bed o n a
tab l e a n d d ropped h i s l ivery u n iform o n t h e p l ates a n d
the

g l asse s ,

h i s b o d y h e av i n g with

aba n d o n ,

his

gorged e rection t h rob b i n g at eye-level o f t h e wh ite

h a i re d sap p h i re w h olesalers and s i l kclad fas h i o n d e
signe rs-t h e n , as you r l i stener awaits you r apprai s a l ,
t h e word "Wo n d e rfu l ! 11 o r "Wow ! 11 b reaks the n arra
tive. This utterance d oes n ot class ify the n arrated
event i n a j ud g m e nt accord i n g to the social and n o r
m ative code s ;

it excla i m s that w h at was j ust n a r

rated-what h ad n ever before been d o n e o r seen

was o utside all the codes and n o r m s with w h i c h o n e
j udges w h at o n e sees . It com m u n icates t o you r l is
tene r by its tone-com m u n icates somet h i n g m o re
t h a n , a n d somet h i n g d iffe ren t fro m , w h at t h e descrip
tio n , p h otogra p h i c a n d cl i n ical as you cou l d make it,
com m u n i cate d .

Somet h i n g u n avowab l e ,

u n co nfess

a b l e , i nfanti l e and p e rverse-you r i n v o l u ntary, seari n g

e nvy; you r m i serabl e p i ty that abru ptly wel l ed u p
p i ty for you r own seventeenth year, of c h i l d a b u s e ;
you r seventeenth year i n w h i c h you r erectio n s were
s ha mefu l , g u i lty, h idden in the odors of u ri n e and s h i t

FAC E S , I DO LS , F ET I S H ES

of locked toi l ets ; you r seventeenth year when you r

com i n g i nto biologica l , sexual matu rity was sealed
with castratio n . And in you r l istener, who l istened to
you r descri ptio n as the descri pti on of somet h i n g he
o r she h ad never seen o r h eard of or i magi n e d , whose
somewhat frighte n e d , scandal ized m i n d was tee m i n g
with soc i a l , ethica l , normative j u dgments a n d con
d e m natio n s, s u d d e n ly b l u s h ed with t h e heat of the
contagion of that fee l i ng you r word i nfected him o r
h e r with . Someth i n g was u nd e rstood ; someth i n g was
u nd e rstood

betwe e n

acco m p l i ce s .

Som eth i n g

was

said that made t h e othe r you r acco m p l i ce .

The su rfaces o f another, w h i c h c a n be scruti n ized
as an expan s e of sym ptom s of the i n n e r m u scu latu re,
glands, and n e rvous c i rc u itry of the fu n ctional o rgan
i s m , d o u b l e i nto a face . The face of the oth e r is the
origi n al locus of expressi o n . The sensory-motor forces
that turn its contou rs and s hape its movements speak,
are i ntenti o n a l , designate objects and o bjectives of
the envi ro n m e nt .
A t the same t i m e , t h e s e n s u o u s forces that open t h e
eyes a n d t h e postu re a n d expose the su rfaces t o t h e
landscape a n d that well u p i n s u pe rabu ndant vitality
and make the eyes rad iant, the ears attuned to d i stant
melodies, and the face ardent, speak. The face re
fracts a d o u b l e of itself, made of warmth and l ight,
which speaks, n ot m essages add ressed to o rd e r oth
e rs, but vital i z i n g and e n n o b l i n g , confi rm i n g a n d con-

A L P H ONS O L I N G I S

secrat i n g word s i ntoned to itself-wo rds uttered not

for t h e i r representational form but for t h e i r condens
ing, i n te n s ifyi n g force-mantras . The expressive face
d o u b l e s i nto an idol .
The forces that d o u b l e u p t h e o n e who tu rns h i s
face t o t h e world i nto an i d o l are n ot t h e i ntenti onal
cogn itive a n d com m u n icative-forces ; t h ey are sensu
o u s forces t h at a n i m ate t h e s u rfaces of t h e other. For
the sensua l i ty there i s in our sensitivity i s not s i m p ly
the affective effects by w h i c h the i m pact of outside
sti m u l i , w h i ch are recorded as i nfo rmatio n - b its, dou
b l e u p i nto i rrad i ations of p l eas u re and pain o n o u r
sensory su rface s . Pleasu res a n d pai n s designate o n ly
the reactive affects of a passive sensi b i l ity. S e n s u a l ity
i n o u r orga n i sm is force a n d active ; with t h e i ntensit
ies of o u r sensual ity, we tu rn to expose o u r bodies
gratu ito u sly to t h i n gs our o rgan i s m does n ot need to
compen sate for its n eeds a n d its wants ; we open o u r
eyes t o d i stant vistas a n d m i rages a n d t o t h e m ost re
mote stars, a n d we open o u r ears to the h u m of t h e
city a n d t h e m essageless m u rm u r o f forest i n sects a n d
rust l i n g l eave s ; we fon d l e the s i l k of robes and the
powder of t h e b utterflies sti l l gaudy i n death , a n d we
expose o u r carnal su bstance to t h e grand e u r of the
oceans a n d t h e celestial terror of e lectrical sto r m s .
The stro n g a n d active forces o f h ealthy sensual ity a r e
n ot p a i n e d by the absurd, but d rive i nto it w i t h t h e
forces o f laughter; t h ey are n ot defeated by the m i nd
l e s s cruelti es o f the u n iverse, b u t d rive toward them

FACE S , I DOLS, FETI S H E S

with the forces of wee p i n g a n d c u rses. The stron g and

active forces of healthy sensual ity speak, speak words
of con secration and i mprecatio n .
The stron g a n d active forces o f sensual ity o n t h e
s u rfaces o f t h e expressive face d o u b l e it w i t h t h e
laughter a n d tears o f a n idol . And s p e a k t h e i r exu ltant
and e n n o b l i n g , consecrat i n g , wo rd s . These words ut
tered by n onte leologica l , repetitive, i n s istent, i ntensi
fyi n g forces chant a n d d o n ot d i sc o u rse. They do n ot
designate what anyone sees, b u t m a k e vis i b l e an ap
parition over the o n e that utters them . Words of joy
and of lamentation w h i c h do n ot compare t h i s appari
tion with othe rs o r address it to the demands o r re
sources of others, they are sovereign wo rds-mantras
with which an idol crysta l l izes and sends forth flashes
of l ight.
In t h e wea k , passive sensual ity there are also forces,
rancoro u s and b e l l igerent forces, and n ot o n l y passive
affects of pleas u re and pai n . The bitter and reactive
sensual ity rubs over its wou nds a n d scars u nt i l t h ey
s h i n e ; it rep resents itself with the i mage of the good
l ife in order to badger the othe rs-fetish izes itself. It
seeks to fix the e b b i n g forces of l ife with fixed fo rms,
a b i d i n g a n d selfsame. Its i d e a l i z i n g words are feti s h iz
i n g m essages-demands add ressed to others. The one
who u nd e rstands them u nd e rstands t h e i r forces-that
is, t h ey spread n ot by t h e i r forms b e i n g com pre
hended by the d iscri m i n ati n g and i d e ntifying i ntel l i -

ALPHONSO LINGIS

gence of oth ers, b u t by t h e i r c u n n i ng fi n d i n g accom

pl ices i n t h e severe sensual ity o f others .
It i s o n t h e faces of othe rs that w e d iscover t h e i r
val u e s . It i s n ot i n t h e m ea n i n g o f t h e i r express i o n s
b u t o n the fig u re they material ize, shaped n ot b y t h e
p ressu res o f t h e world b u t b y the j oyou s o r ran corous
i n n e r force in t h e m , that we see what their sensual ity
idol izes or fetish izes.
When someone coded in the com mo n codes of civi
l izat i o n tu rns up a n d faces us, his o r her face says,
" H e re I a m ! " H e o r she faces not s i mply as another
partic u l a r u po n w h i c h the social catego ries are i n
stantiate d . What faces is what the m ea n i n g o n e m i g ht
give to t h i s su rface can not contai n , an excess over a n d
above the forms a n d thei r coded sign ificance. The fac
i n g is an exclamatory act that i n te rru pts t h e exch a n ge
of m essages picked u p from othe rs a n d passed on to
others.
The I, the i d o l , that m akes a n apparit i o n , sayi n g ,
" He re I a m " , i s n ot u nd e rstood i n a n act o f u n d e r
sta n d i n g that d e l i n eates t h e m ean i n g of the term I by
d e l i n eati n g h ow t h e h e , s h e , a n d they w h o are a ro u n d
are code d . O n e abruptly fi n d s oneself confronted by
the a p pariti o n of t h e sol itary a n i ma l : the eagl e , t h e
falcon, t h e satyr, t h e s p h i n x , the separated, t h e sacred
o n e , the i do l . To recogn ize what makes its appearance
i s n ot to re-cognize, to recode a n other i n stance of a
category; it is to respond to t h e s i n g u l a r apparitio n .

F A C E S , I D O L S , F ET I S H E S

The "Wow, it's you ! " with w h i c h o n e respo nds is an

exclamatio n that b reaks t h e c o m m e rce of m essages
a n d t h at responds with a s u rge of sensual ity a n d with
a greeti n g that i s laughter o r weepi n g , b l e s s i n g or
c u rs i n g . An excla m ati on that, by its ton e , com m u n i
cates.
S o m eth i n g passes between one s e n s u al ity accom
p l i ce to another.

S o m eth i n g was u n de rstood ;

the

password among accomplices was recogn ized . Some

t h i n g was said that made you t h e acco m p l i ce of the
o n e that i s one of his ki nd : q u etzal b i rd , savage, ab
origi n a l , g u e rr i l l a , n o m a d , Mon g o l , Aztec, s p h i n x .

I N F O RMAT I O N A N D N O I S E

We

com m u n icate i nformatio n with spoken

utter

a n ces, by tel e p h o n e , with tape record i ng s , in writi n g ,

a n d w i t h pri nti n g . W i t h t h e s e methods we com m u n i
cate i n t h e l i n g u i stic code . We also com m u n icate i n
formation with

body k i n e sics-with gestu res,

pos

t u res, facial expres s i o n s , ways of b reat h i n g , s i g h i n g ,

and to u c h i n g o n e another. The com m u n icati o n h e re
too u ses a b b reviatio n s , s i g n s , a n d conventio n s .
T o make d rawn l i n e s i nto writ i n g , w e have t o con
form with t h e convention t h at d ictates that certai n
stro kes correspond to a certa i n word a n d n otio n . Even
those a m o n g us with excel lent m a n u a l dexterity, good
tra i n i n g , good h ealth , and ale rtness make s l i p s in o u r
pen m a n s h i p a n d o u r typ i n g . There are always typos i n
the m any-ti m e s copyedited critical editi o n s of classic
authors. There i s no spea k i n g without sta m merings,
m is p ro n u nc iati o n s , regional accents, o r dys p h o n i a s .
Typ i n g a n d p ri nti n g a r e d e s i g n e d to e l i m i nate t h e ca
cography, yet in every boo k we h ave seen some l et
ters a n d words that are so fai ntly i m p ressed that t h ey
are i n fe rred rather than seen. Record i ng , a n d rad i o
a n d televi s i o n trans m is s i o n , a r e designed t o e l i m i n ate

ALPHONSO LINGIS

the caco p h o ny, but there can be static, cut-offs, a n d

jam m in g ; there i s always hysteres i s , t h e lagg i n g of
trans m i s s i o n d u e to s h ifti n g i n the e lectromagnetic
fie l d ; a n d there i s always backgro u n d noise.
E nteri n g i nto com m u n ication means extracti n g the
m essage from its backgro u n d noise a n d from t h e
n o i se that i s i nternal to the message. Com m u n ication
i s a struggle aga i n st i nterferen ce a n d confusion . It i s a
struggle aga i n st the i rrelevant a n d a m b i g u o u s s i g n a l s
w h i c h m ust b e p u s hed b a c k i nto the backgro u n d a n d
agai n st t h e cacophony i n the signals t h e i nterlocuto rs
address to o n e another-th e reg i o n a l accents, m i sp ro
n u ncia:tio n s , i na u d i b l e p ro n u n ciati o n s , sta m merings,
coughs, ejacu lati o n s , wo rds started a n d then can
celed, and u n gram m atical form u lati o n s-an d t h e ca
cography in the graph ics.

COMM U N I CATI O N A N D C O N T E N T I O N

It i s stri k i n g that the deve l o p m e nt of k n owledge i s

conceived i n m i l itary term s , such as h unt, raid, strat
egy, battle, a n d conquest. Yet is not k n owledge devel
oped i n a n d for com m u n icatio n ? W h e n i ndivid uals
s h i el d ed a n d armed e n co u nter o n e a n other a n d make
a move to com m u n icate-exten d i n g b a red hands a n d
s peak i n g-the i r violence c o m e s t o a sto p . Disco u rse
i nterru pts violence and words s i l e n ce the clash of

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

a r m s . Com m u n ication fi n d s a n d estab l i shes some

t h i n g in c o m m o n beneath all contentio n .
B u t com m u n ication itself h a s been classi cally con
ceived as a n agon, a contention between i nterlocu
tors. Com m u n ication takes p lace in d i scou rse, that is,
a d ia lectics of d e m a n d and response, statement a n d
contestation, i n w h i c h i nterlocutors o p pose one an
other.
One sees com m u n icatio n as a conti n uati o n of vio
l e nce, b u t with other means. One sees in t h e d i a lec
tical cadence of com m u n ication, proceedi n g by af
firmatio n and contestation, an i n te rval in which each
makes h i m se l f oth e r than the other, when o n e sees
each o n e spea k i n g in o rd e r to establ i s h the rightness
of what h e says . To speak in o rd e r to establ i s h one's
own rightness i s to speak in order to s i l en ce t h e
o t h e r . Y e t Socrates from the begi n n i n g excl u d ed t h e
poss i b i lity of esta b l i s h i n g one's o w n rightness. C o m
m u n icatio n i s an effort t o s i l ence, n ot t h e other, t h e
i nterlocutor, b u t t h e outs i d e r : the barbarian, t h e pro
sopopoei a of n o i s e .
M i c h e l Serres argues 1 that there i s i n d eed force be
ing exercised to resi st and s i l e n ce another in all com
m u n ication, b u t it i s not in t h e d i alectic of d e m a n d
a n d response, statem e n t a n d contestation, i n w h i c h
i n terlocuto rs p o s i t i o n themselves a n d d i ffer the o n e
1 . Michel Serres, "Platonic Dialogue," trans. Marilyn Sides in
V. Harari & David F. Bell (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins U niversity Press, 1 983).

Hermes, ed. Josue

ALPHONSO LINGIS

from the other. What t h e o n e says may o p pose

q uesti o n , deny, or contradict-what the other says,
but in for m u l at i n g oppos i n g statem ents that respond
to o n e another, i n terlocutors do n ot entrench them
selves i n rec i p rocal excl u s i o n . For speaker a n d a ud itor
exc hange

their

ro les

in

d ialogue

with

certai n

rhyth m ; t h e sou rce becomes reception a n d the recep

tio n , the s o u rc e ; the othe r becomes but a variant of
t h e same . 2 Discussion is n ot strife ; it t u r n s confronta
tion i nto i nterc h a n g e .
H owever, when two i n d ivid u a l s ren o u n ce vio l e n ce
a n d set out to comm u n icate, t h ey enter i nto a relation
of n on-co m m u n i catio n a n d violence with o utsiders.
The re could well b e , and i n fact always is, a n o utsider
o r outsid e rs w h o have an i nterest in p reventi n g com
m u n icatio n . Every conversation betwee n i n d ivid ua l s i s
su bversive-s u bversive o f some esta b l ished order,
some esta b l i shed set of val u e s , o r some vested i nter
ests . There i s always an e n e my, a big b rothe r l iste n i n g
i n o n a l l o u r conversati o n s , a n d that i s why w e talk
q u ietly b e h i n d c l osed doors. There i s n ot h i n g you or
I say to o n e another i n conversat i o n that we wo u l d
say if t h e television came ras were foc u sed o n us for
d i rect b roadcast.
There are o utsiders who h ave an i nterest in pre
venti n g this rather than that from b e i n g com m u n i
cate d ; t h ey do so by argu i n g fo r t h at, by p resentin g it

2. I b i d . , p. 67.

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

i n sed u ctive a n d captivat i n g ways, or by fi l l i n g the

t i m e a n d t h e space with it. There are o utsiders who
have a n interest in preve n ti n g u s from com m u n i cati n g
at a l l . They do s o b y fi l l i n g the t i m e a n d t h e space with
i rrelevant a n d confl i cti n g m essage s , with n o i s e .
Formerly the street wal ls o f b u i l d i ngs w e r e b l i n d ,
without wi n dows ; anyone w h o c a m e t o speak h a d to
ri n g a b e l l a n d tell h i s n a m e . Today t h e street wal l s of
b u i l d i ngs are screen s u po n w h i c h m essages are writ
ten i n neon flashes-irrelevant and confl icti n g m es
sages w h i c h a re n ot received and responded to b u t
which agitate a n d m e rge i nto i mages that dazzle, i n
veig l e , a n d excite t h e co n s u m e r frenzy of contem po
rary l ife. The roads and the paths to the fu rthest re
treats in the cou ntry are l in e d with wi res tense with
stock-exch an ge pandem o n i u m ;

beams bou n ced off

satel l ites in o uter space penetrate all the wal l s .

The wal l s w e h ave to e rect a b o u t o u rselves a r e i m
material wal l s , the wal l s of an i d i o l ect whose terms
a n d tu rns of p h rase are not in the d i ctionary a n d the
manuals of rhetoric. N ot o n ly t h e tal k of lovers, b u t
every conversation that is res u m ed agai n a n d aga i n
becomes, over t i m e , i n co m p re h e n s i b l e t o o utsiders.
There i s secrecy in every conversatio n . In the meas u re
that t h i s wal l of secrecy gets t h i n ner, we m o re and
m o re utter but cu rrent o p i n i o n s , conventional form u
l a s , a n d i nconseq u e ntial j u d gments. H ei d egger q u ite
m i ssed that; it i s the big and l ittl e H itlers l u rk i n g i n
every h a l lway, every c l assro o m , and every bar where

ALPHONSO LINGIS

we went to rel ax a n d get o u r m i n d s off t h i ngs, that

p ro d u ce das Gerede-"tal k . "
There a r e also a l l ies-o utsiders w h o have an i n te r
est i n promoti n g t h e com m u n icatio n between u s . The
com pany wants the section m e m bers to com m u n i cate
with o n e another; in d i sp utes t h e pol ice want us to
try to com m u n icate with o u r n e i g h b o rs before cal l i ng
t h e m . Even authoritarian gove r n me n ts want the citi
zens to com m u n icate at l east their fears a n d resigna
tion to o n e another.
When we can n ot com m u n icate , we appeal to out
side rs to h e l p . We e n ro l l i n c lasses, to learn from pro
fessors m astery of the esta b l ished forms of d iscou rse
and the state of the c u rrent d ebate, so as to be a b l e
to com m u n icate o u r i n s ig h ts effectively. W e appeal to
the scientific com m u n ity, its esta b l i shed voca b u l a ry
a n d rhetorical fo rms, i n tryi n g to com m u n icate with
fel l ow-scienti sts from J apan o r agric u lt u ra l wo rkers i n
Africa. Descartes, h avi n g esta b l i s h ed t h e existence of
h i s own m i n d a n d h i s own thoughts, then appeals to
the great o utsider, God , before he moves on to con
sider t h e existence of other m i n d s and the possi b i l ity
of com m u n icati n g with them .
I n m a k i n g p h i l osophy n ot the i mparti n g of a doc
tri n e but the cl arificatio n of terms, Socrates, l i ke ana
lytic p h i l osophers , l i ke recent prag m at i c p h i l osophers ,
m a kes p h i losophy a fac i l itator o f com m u n icatio n . Soc-

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

rate s , who evolved from s o l d i e r to p h i loso p h e r i n t h e

service o f t h e comm u n ity, struggled aga i n st the bab
ble and the barbarian who i s the real e n e m y of truth .
But M i c h e l Serres i nterprets the Socratic effort i n
s u c h a way a s to m ake t h e e l i m i n ation of n o i se, i n the
rational com m u n ity, a struggle agai n st t h e r u m b l e of
t h e world a n d to m a k e the struggle agai n st t h e o ut
s i d e r a struggle agai n st t h e e m pi ricist.

T H E S I G N I F I E D, T H E S I G N I F I E R,
THE REFERENT

To com m u n i cate i s to take a n e m itted signal to m ean

the same to the speaker a n d to the a u d ito r. And it i s
t o take an e m itted s i g n a l to m ean t h e s a m e a s a signal
e mitted before. The m ea n i n g designated b y conven
tional s i g n i fi e rs at d i fferent times and

in d i fferent

p l aces is reco g n ized to be the same ; H usserl charac

terizes t h e m ean i n g of expressions as ideal . Mea n i n gs
exist, n ot i ntem p o rally a n d aspatia l ly, b u t by the i n
defi n ite poss i b i l ity o f recu rri n g a n d b y t h e i ndefi n ite
possi b i l ity of bei n g design ated by sign ifiers i ssued
anywhere , anyt i m e .
There i s , i n l an guage, n o fi rst o r last occu rrence of
a word . A word can have m ea n i n g only if it can be
repeate d . The words that have suffered o b so lescence
can sti l l be referred to, by l i ng u i sts and students of
l iterature, and can be returned to the l a n g u age; t h e i r

ALPHONSO LINGIS

d e m i s e i s n ever defi n itive. The fi rst t i m e a word i s

constructed, if it i s t o be able t o e nter i nto the usages
of l a n g u age, it m ust a p pear as al ready latent in the
structu res and parad i g m s and r u l es of for m u latio n of
the l a n g u age .
It is n ot o n ly t h e sign ification b u t the signifier, too,
that is i d e a l . What signals i n a s o u n d is not its particu
l a r sonorous q ua l ity as real ly h eard, b u t t h e formed
sound t h at i s taken to be ideally t h e same as that of
other s o u n d s uttered before and yet to be uttere d . To
hear s o u n d s as words, to he(lr signals i n t h e n o ise,
is to abstract from the soprano or bass, t h i n n ess o r
reson a nce, soft ness o r l o u d ness, o r t e m p o of t h e i r
partic u l a r real izatio n s a n d t o atten d o n ly to the d i s
t i n ctive feature that conventionally makes the s o u n d s
d i st i n ct p h o n e m e s i n the p h o n etic system of a particu
l a r l an guage . The word as a sign ifier i s al ready a n ab
straction a n d t h e prod u ct of an ideal ization .
Recog n i z i n g what is written i nvolves epigraphy, a
s k i l l i n separat i n g out t h e i l l-written featu res of t h e l et
ters a n d words. The geometry class abstracts from t h e
fact t h a t t h e d rawi n g t h e teac h e r h as p u t o n the board
is o n l y approxi m ately a right triangle o r a c i rcl e . When
s h e d raws a ci rcle with a compass, one i g n o res the
fact that t h e pencil angle s h ifts as s h e d raws a n d the
l i n e i s thicker o n one side than o n another. The
reade r systematically neglects not o n ly t h e e rroneous
l i nes b ut a l so t h e particu l a rities with w h i c h the l etters
have to be mate rial ized . He d i sregards the fact that

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

they are written i n b l u e or b lack i n k, or set i n a Cou

rier 10 o r Courier 12 typeface . Read i ng i s a pec u l i a r
k i n d o f seei n g that vaporizes t h e s u bstrate, the h u e
a n d grai n of t h e p a p e r o r o f the computer screen a n d
sees the writ i n g as wi l l-o'-the-wi sp patterns i n a space
d i sc o n n ected from the material layout of t h i ngs.
To com m u n icate i s to have practiced that demateria
l iz i n g see i n g that is see i n g patterns as writi n g and that
d e m ateri a l i z i n g heari n g that is

heari n g stream s of

s o u n d s as words a n d p h rases. It is to p u s h i nto the

backgro u n d , as noise, t h e partic u l a r t i m ber, pitch,
vo l u me , a n d tonal l e n gth of t h e words being uttered
and to p u s h i nto the backgro u n d , as white noise, the
partic u l a r color, pen m a n s h i p , a n d typeface, of the vis
i b l e patterns. Com m u n i cati on-by wo rds and also by
co nventional ized

k i nesic

s i g n als-depends

on

the

com m o n deve l o p m e nt of these s k i l l s i n e l i m i nat i n g

the i n n e r n o i se i n s i g n a l s a n d i n d e m ateria l i z i n g vision
a n d a u d ition .
To com m u n i cate with another, o n e first has to have
terms with w h i c h o n e com m u n icates with the s u cces
sive m om ents of one's experience. Al ready to have a
term w h i c h , when o n e p ro n o u nces it now, o n e takes
to be the same as when o n e p ro n o u n ced it a m o m e n t
a g o , is t o have d e m aterial ized the so u n d p atte r n , de
material ized a vocal ization i n to a sign ifier, a word .
Memory works t h i s d e m aterial izatio n . Whe n o n e con
veys someth i n g in words to another, h ow d oes o n e
k n ow that t h e com m u n i catio n i s successfu l ? Because

A L P H ON S O L I N G I S

o n e h ears t h e other spea k i n g about that experience,

resp o n di n g to it, a n d relat i n g it to other experiences,
i n terms one wou l d h ave u sed . To recognize t h e
words of a n o t h e r as t h e word s o n e u s e d o r wou l d
u s e , o n e d eparti c u l a rizes those wo rds o f t h e i r e m p i ri
cal particu l arities : t h e i r p i t c h , t i m b re, rhyth m , d e n sity,
and vol u m e-th e i r resonance . O n e d i se n gages the
word from its backgro u n d noise a n d from t h e i n n e r
n o i s e of its utte rance. The maximal e l i m i natio n of
noise
among

wou l d

p ro d u ce

i nterlocutors

s u ccessfu l

themselves

com m u n ication
maxi m a l ly

i nter

c h an geab l e .
T h e mean i n gs w e com m u n icate-t h e ways w e refer
to objects and situatio n s-are abstract e n tities : recu r
rent forms. The sign ifiers with which we com m u n icate
are abstract, u n iversal : i d ea l . But the refe rents, too ,
are abstract a n d i d ea l ized e ntiti es.
If we speak to another of a m o u nta i n vista, it i s be
cause that m o u nta i n l a nd scape spo ke to us;

if we

speak of a red , not b rown , door, it i s because that

door e m itted signals i n the vibratio n s that m ade con
tact with our eyes. If our words, signals add ressed to
o n e another, h ave referents, it is because t h i n gs ad
d ress signals to us-or at least b roadcast signals at
l arge .
T h e m ed i u m teems with signals cont i n u a l ly b e i n g
b roadcast f r o m a l l the configu rations a n d a l l the s u r
faces of t h i n gs . To see t h at color of red , to p i c k u p

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

the signals from that door o r that vista, is to constitute

an e n o rm o u s q uantity of i rrelevant and confl i cti n g s i g
nals as backgro u n d n o i s e .
But to refer to that c o l o r of r e d w i t h a word that
one has used to refer to red t h i n gs before and that
wi l l be u sed by one's i nterlocutor who does not see it
o r who sees it from his own a n g l e of visi o n , i s to filter
out a m u lti p l i city of signals given out by this particular
door i n t h e sun a n d shadows of t h i s late afte rnoon
a n d received by one who happens to be sta n d i n g j u st
h e re . What we com m u n icate with t h e word a n d con
cept " red" i s w h at, in t h i s red d oor, can rec u r in other
t h i n gs designated by t h i s word. The recept i o n of s i g
nals from referents i n view of com m u n icati n g them i s
n ot a pal pation t h at d isce rns t h e grai n a n d p u l p a n d
t e n s i o n w i t h which e a c h t h i n g fi l l s out t h e spot it s o
stu b bornly a n d so excl u s ively occ u p i e s . It is see i n g
t h e red o f t h e door, a n d t h e gloom o f t h e forest a n d
t h e shapes o f t h e l eaves, as m od u l a r patterns stamped
on the u np e n etrated d e nsity of t h i ngs. O n l y t h is k i n d
o f l eve l i n g a n d u n d i scern i n g perceptio n , Serres ar
gues,

could

be

com m u n icated .

"The

object

per

ceived ," h e com p l a i n s , "is i ndefi n itely d i scern i ble :

there wou l d have to be a different word for every c i r
cle, for every symb o l , for every tree, a n d for every
p i geo n ; a d iffe rent word for yesterday, today, a n d to
morrow; a n d a d i fferent word accord i n g to whethe r
h e w h o perceives it i s y o u o r I , accord i n g t o whethe r
o n e o f t h e two of us i s angry, i s j a u n d iced , a n d so o n

ALPHONSO LINGIS

ad infinitum. " 3 To com m u n i cate i s to consign to noise

t h e tee m i n g flood of signals e m itted by what is partic
u lar, p erspectiva l , and d i st i n ctive in each t h i n g .
T o abstract from t h e noise o f t h e world i s t o be a
ratio n a l i st . The fi rst effort at com m u n ication al ready
begi ns t h e d e m aterial ization that thought wi l l p u rs u e .
T h e effort t o render a fo rm i n d ependent o f i t s e m p i ri
cal realizat i o n s i s s u e s i n the con stitutio n o f the u n iver
sal , the scientific, the m athematica l .

T H E C ITY MAXIMA LLY P U R G E D O F N O I S E

We face o n e another to e m i t signals that can be re

ceive d , recogn ized , a n d reiterated, w h i l e about us ex
tends t h e h u m m i n g , b uzzi n g , m u rm u ri n g , crackl i n g ,
a n d roar i n g worl d . O u r i nterlocutor receives the i n fo r
mation by n ot harken i ng to t h e pitch, vol u m e , accent,
a n d b uzz of our s o u n d s , and atten d i n g o n ly to the
recogn izabl e , repeata b l e fo rm, consign i n g the s i ngu
l a r sono rity of our voice a n d senten ce to n o i se i n te r
n a l to the m essage . And he tu rns to t h e t h i n g , situa
tion ,

o r event

referred

to

by

our

m essage as

recu rrent a n d abstract e ntity, n ot as the s i n gu la r vi

b rant d e n s i ty s u n k in the m o rass of the world and
e m itti n g its part i c u l a r s i g n a l s , static, and noise. The
3 . I bid., p . 70.

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

p ractice of abstraction from t h e e m p i rical i mp l anta

tion of t h i n gs i s what b r i n gs about com m u n icatio n . To
e l i m i n ate t h e noise is to h ave successfu l l y received
the m essage. To com m u n icate it i s to reissu e the ab
stract fo rm . The abstract i s m a i ntained and sbsists i n
t h e m ed i u m o f com m u n icatio n .
The com m u n ity that forms i n com m u n i cati n g i s a n
a l l iance o f i n terlocutors w h o are o n t h e s a m e s i d e ,
who a r e n ot e a c h Other for e a c h oth e r b u t a l l variants
of the Same, t i ed together by the m utual interest of
forci n g back the tide of noise pol l ution .
The Socratic effort to com m u n icate with strangers
is, in real ity, the effort not to ratio n a l l y certify the ex
isti n g Ath e n ian repu b l i c but to fou n d an i d eal rep u b l i c
o f u n i versal com m u n ication-a city m ax i m a l ly pu rged
of n o i s e . 4 It is an effort to fou n d a scientific and math
e m atical d iscou rse a n d to s i l e n ce t h e r u m b l e of the
world . In constructi n g a n objective represe n tation of
natu re out of abstract m at h e m atical e ntitie s , one pro
d u ces a co m m u n ity in q u asi-perfect com m u n icatio n ,
a tra n s parent Rousseau i an com m u n ity where what i s
for m u lated i n t h e m i n d o f each i s what i s a l so for m u
lated i n t h e m i nds o f t h e others. That com m u n ity
wou l d be i m m i n e n t today, as a l l i nformatio n becom es
d i gitally coded a n d tra n s m itted by sate l l ite i n t h e si
l en ces of o uter spac e .

4 . I bid . , p . 68.

A L P H ON S O L I N G I S

But i s it really true t h at u n iversa l , abstract, objec

tive, scientific d i sco u rse i s departicularized and i s t h e
d i scou rse of a nyon e ? It can't be j u st accidenta l t h at to
do p h i losophy is to com pose one's own p h i l osophy, a
p h i l osophy t h at w i l l decom pose with o n e . " I f p h i loso
phy i s autobiogra p h ical , in a sense that science i s n ot
. . . ," I was sayi n g , whe n a p h i loso p h e r of science
i nterru pted m e to refuse t h e d i sti n cti o n . " It i s fat u o u s
to say that if E i n stei n d i d n ot i nvent the special theory
of relativity, someone else wou l d h ave," s h e objected .
" Everybody now u nd e rstan d s that t h e data h e was
work i n g with a n d the theo ries he was try i n g to i nte
grate c o u l d be fo r m u l ated and i ntegrated in any n u m
ber of d i ffe rent, i maginable a n d so far u n i m ag i n a b l e ,
ways. I f Ei n ste i n h a d n o t s l i pped out i n t i m e from N az i
G e rm a ny, there is every reason t o th i n k w e wou ld
never h ave t h e special theory of relativity . " The term
" e lectricity" has a different sense fo r a television re
pairman than for a n el ectrical e n g i n ee r work i n g o n u r
ban power gene rators or on CAT-scan eq u i p m e n t , b u t
a l s o fo r a m eteoro logist, a so l id-state p hys icist, o r an
astro n o m e r . Its mean i n g is d i fferent i n each l abo ra
tory; the different models a n d parad i g m s with which
any scientist works s p read a d i ffe rent array of paths
about the movement of his terms. It is n ot o n ly t h e
n ew hypotheses posited a n d n e w expe r i ments d e
vised that g e n e rate n ew conceptio n s ; when a scientist
reads t h e work of another scientist, t h e terms may
g e n e rate a d i fferent move m e n t in the paths of t h e

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

conceptual operations of t h e reade r than t h ey had i n

those o f t h e writer.
I s n ot, then , t h e i d eal of the kind of m axi mally u n
equ ivocal tra n s m i ss i o n of messages i n t h e i n d u stry o f
a social space maxi m a l l y pu rged of n o i s e t h at Serres
i nvokes, another idol of the m a rketplace-idol of the
com m u n i cation theo ry (devised for the service of o u r
m i l itary- i n d u strial com p l ex) ?
S erres's a rgu ment l eads h i m to i dentify , as noise,
the whole of t h e e m p i rical as such . "To isolate an
ideal form i s to rend e r it i ndependent of t h e e m p i rical
d o m a i n a n d of n o i s e . Noise i s the e m p i rical portion of
the m essage j u st as the e m p i rical d o m a i n is the noise
of form . " 5 "The 'th i rd m a n ' to exc l u d e , " S erres now
con c l udes, " i s the e m p i ricist, a l o n g with h i s e m p i rical
d o m a i n . . . . [ l ] n order for d i alogue to b e poss i b l e ,
o n e m ust c l o s e one's eyes a n d cover one's e a r s t o t h e
song a n d t h e beauty of t h e s i re n s . I n a s i n g l e b l ow,
we e l i m i n ate heari n g and

noise, vision

and fai l ed

d raw i n g ; i n a si n g l e b low, we conce ive t h e form a n d

w e u nd e rstan d e a c h other. " 6
Rationali sts-mathematicians, scientists, a n d t h e m i
rac u l o u s G reeks-e l i m i nate the signals e m itted by the
part i c u l a rities of e m p i rical

particulars a n d tra n s m i t

o n ly t h e abstract ideal ities ; e m p i ricists p i c k u p a l l t h e

static b e i n g e m itted by t h e particu l a rities of e m p i rical
5 . Ibid., p . 70.
6. ibid.

A L P H ON S O L I NG I S

rea l ities a n d u se different words for every ci rcl e and

every p i geon , for t h e ci rcles and p i geons others see
from t h e i r p erspectival poi nts of view, a n d for c i rcles
a n d p i geons p e rceived with j a u n d iced eyes o r t h e fe
l i ne eyes of carnivoro u s i nterlocuto rs . They are Evi l
G e n i uses o f interfere n ce b u tt i n g i n to every effort at
com m u n icati n g an u neq u ivocal i nformatio n-bit from
one to the othe r . "The m o re [empi ricists] are right,
the l ess we can hear them ; t h ey end up o n l y m a k i n g
n o i se . " 7
E m p i ricists are t h e d e m o n s that r u l e t h e worl d . But
o n e cann ot p rogressively assi m i late m o re a n d m o re of
these e p h e m e ra l proper names for the signals of t h e
worl d ; o n e has to struggle agai nst them . The o n ly so
l ution i s to say, with Lei b n iz agai nst Locke, that " e m
p i ri c i s m wou l d always be correct if mathe m atics d i d
n ot exist . " 8 The com m u n ity that esta b l i s hes com m u n i
cation has to take its existence as p roof of its val id ity.
The o n ly solution i s to " n ot want to l i sten to Prota
goras and Cal l ic les-because t h ey are right." This,
Serres writes, " i s not a n ad hominem argu m e n t ; it i s
t h e o n ly logical defe n se possi b l e . " 9 The com m u n ity
we m u st want m u st n ot wan t to hear the g l ossola l i a of
n o n h u m a n t h i ngs-the h u m m i ng , b uzzi n g , m u rm u r
i n g , crac k l i n g , a n d roar i n g of t h e world, m u st n ot
want to h ea r t h e stam m e ri n gs , q uaveri n gs , d ro n i n gs
7. I b id . , p. 70, n . 1 1 .
8 . I b i d . , p . 70, n . 12.
9. I b i d .

THE M U R M U R O F

THE WORLD

of one another's voices, and must want its hearing

perfectly adjusted to hear the mathematics relayed by
satellites i n outer space.
What an extraordinary outcome of the ancient So
cratic philosophy of dialogue completed now in a con
temporary theory of communication! The struggle for

the establishment of trans pa re nt intersubjectivity is a

battle against the relayers of the signals of the world.
Communication depends on, is the other side of,
non-communication-a wanting to not communicate
and an active battle to silence the empiricist demons.
The only logical defense of rationality and logic is the
active and combative will to not listen to Protagoras
and Callicles-because they are right!

THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE OTHER

Serres conceives of communication as an exchange of

expressions that have the same informative value for
the receiver as for the emitter, expressions whose
value reduces to exchange-value. Expressions that
would discern what differentiates one circle from an
other; one symbol, tree, or pigeon from another; one
yesterday, today, or tomorrow from another; or your
angry or jaundiced perception from mine, have no
communicative value. Serres then conceives of inter
locutors as emitters and receptors which interchange

A L P H ON S O L I N G I S

thei r fu n ctio n s . I n the m e as u re that what was received

was w h at was e m itted and that what was com m u n i
cated

was t h e abstract,

d eparti c u l arized

message,

each partner in conversatio n becomes t h e same for

t h e oth e r : the a u d itor beco m i n g speaker of what h e
heard a n d t h e recepto r s o u rce o f what h e receive d .
Serres argues that i n a d i alogue, the two i nterlocu
tors are " i n n o way o p posed , " 10 b u t are variants of
each other, are variants of ..the Same, because the
q uestio n e r and the respondent exch an ge t h e i r recip
rocal rol es , with the s o u rce beco m i n g reception a n d
t h e reception sou rce, "acco rd i n g to a g i v e n rhyth m . "
But does n ot t h i s rhyt h m o p pose them ? I s i t not the
t i m e-gap between e m ission of t h e signal and its recep
tion that opens up the space of hysteresis where t h e
i nterfe rences a n d t h e m i scon structio n s e nter? I n the
ideal rep u b l i c that Serres i nvokes-the city of com m u
n ication m ax i m a l ly p u rged of noi se-wo u l d not the
e m i s s i o n a n d reception h ave to be s i m u ltan eo u s ? The
less time i n vo lved in t h e com m u n ication m eans t h e
l e s s t h e rm odyn a m i c e n e rgy i nvolved a n d the l e s s e n
tropy. Two m o d e m s , tra n s m itti n g a n d receivi n g i n fo r
m at i o n - b its s i m u ltaneously, wou l d be the model .
B u t t o affi rm somet h i n g i s n ot s i m ply t o make one
self t h e m o m entary source of a form u l ation whose ab
stractness m akes it equ ivalent of what any i nterlocutor
does or can issue and receive; it i s to present some-

1 0 . I b i d . , p . 67.

THE M U RM U R O F THE WORLD

t h i n g to someone fo r h i s j ud g m e nt, h i s confirmation

o r contestatio n . To set oneself forth as a s u bject of
d i sco u rse i s to expose o neself to being contested and
d i scredite d . To make o neself a s u bject i n d i scourse is
to s u bject oneself to another. Al ready, to greet some
one i s to recogn ize his o r h e r right over o n e .
T o q u estion someone i s n ot s i m p ly t o m a k e o n eself
a receptor for i nfo rmation which one will soon reis
sue; it i s to a p peal to a n other fo r what i s not avai lable
to o neself. To add ress a q u e ry o r even a greeti n g to
another i s to expose one's i gn orance, one's lacks, a n d
on e's d estitution a n d i s to a p peal fo r assistance to o n e
n o n -sym m etrical w i t h o neself.
To add ress someone i s n ot si m p l y to add ress a
s o u rce of i nfo rmati o n ; it is to add ress o n e who w i l l
a n swer a n d a n swer f o r h i s o r h e r a n swer. The t i m e
delay, between statem e n t a n d response, i s the t i m e i n
wh i c h t h e other, w h i l e f u l ly p resent there before o n e ,
withd raws i nto t h e fou rth d i me n s i o n-reaffi r m i n g h i s
o r h e r otherness, ri s i n g u p beh i n d whatever h e pres
ents of h i m se lf, and r i s i n g u p ever beyond whatever I
represent of h e r a n d present to h e r-to contest it o r
t o confirm it.
To enter i nto conversation with another i s to lay
down one's arms a n d one's defe n se s ; to t h row open
the gates of one's own posit i o n s ; to expose o n eself to
t h e other, the outs i d e r ; a n d to lay o neself open to
s u rprises, contestation , a n d i n cu l pati o n . It is to risk
what one fou n d o r prod u ced in com m o n . To enter

ALPHONSO LINGIS

i nto conversation i s to struggle agai nst t h e n o i s e , t h e

interference, a n d the vested i nterests , the b i g b roth
e rs a n d t h e l ittl e H itlers always l i sten i n g i n-i n o rd e r
to expose o neself t o t h e a l i e n , the Bali n ese a n d the
Aztec, t h e victi m s a n d t h e excl uded, t h e Palesti n ia n s
a n d t h e Q u e c h u as a n d t h e C row I nd i an s , t h e d ream
e rs , the mystics, the mad , t h e tortu red , a n d t h e b i rds
a n d t h e frogs . One e nters i nto conversation i n o rd e r
to becom e a n othe r for t h e othe r.

T H E N O I S E I N T H E M E S SA G E

We

are

necessary

as

efficient

cau ses

of

new

sentences, p ro du cers of n ew i nformation form u l ated

with old word s . But in o u r particu larities, o u r perspec
tival poi nts of view, and o u r d i sti nctive capacities to
issue a n d to receive m ea n i n gs, we are part of the
n o i s e . The t i m e it takes to fo r m u late those senten ces
i s a t i m e fi l l ed with t h e opacity of our own voices.
How tra n s parent com m u n icat i o n m ig h t be i f there
were n ot resistance i n the c h a n n e l s that c o n d u ct i t :
n o l i l t i n g , b o m bastic, sta m m er i n g voice p ro n o u n c i n g
it !
Yet is t he re not also a com m u n ication i n the heari n g
o f t h e n o i se i n o n e a nothe r's voi ces-t h e noise of o n e
another's l i fe that accompanies t h e harke n i n g t o t h e
m essage ? W h a t k i n d o f com m u n ication wou l d that
be?

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R LD

The parti c u l a r , t h e material , the e m p i ri ca l , Serres

says, i s i n d efi n itely d i scern i b l e . It is a s u ccession of
s i g n a l s , each with its own n a m e , in a static that can n ot
be recorded o r reprod u ce d . Yet s u rely every day we
do succeed i n com m u n icati n g to o n e another, n ot
o n ly the abstract for m u l a of an i nsight, b u t the u n i q u e
spe l l o f t h e e n co u nter with a n early-wi nter afte rnoo n ,
t h e charm o f somet h i n g someone said t h at was n ever
before said , o r the wei rd ness of a fee l i n g never before
felt. Language i s the a m az i n g power to say, with a l i m
ited n u m be r of word s a n d g ra m m atical structu res,
sentences n ever before said that form u l ate events that
have n ever before occu rred .
Every new senten ce that succeeds i n sayi n g some
t h i n g does so, Merleau-Po nty said , by a coherent de
formation of t h e sentence parad igms a l ready in the
language.

Every n ew senten ce also conti n ues the

bend i n g , exte n d i n g , and defo r m i n g of t h e cod e . " Let

us agree , ' ' Serres writes, "that . . . com m u n ication is
o n ly poss i b l e between two person s used to the same
. . . forms, tra i ned to code a n d decode a m ean i n g by
using

the

same

key . " 11

B u t when

an

America n ,

b ro u g ht u p o n I n d ian legends, says t o an E n g l i s h m a n ,

b ro u g h t u p o n l egends o f i m perial c o n q u e ro rs , "He's
b rave . . . , '' they do not h ave t h e same key to this
word . If, n o n et h el ess, t h e one u nd e rstan d s the other,
it is by i m p rovi s i n g the key as one goes a l o n g .

1 1 . I bid . , p . 65.

ALPHONSO LINGIS

I s it n ot also false to su ppose that o n l y the mea n i n g

attached t o words by a cod e , fixed o r evolvi n g , com
m u n icate s ? The rhyth m , t h e tone, t h e periodicity, t h e
stam m e ri n g s , a n d the s i l ences com m u n icate. I n t h e
ru s h of the b reath l ess voice, the tu m u lt o f events i s
conveyed ; i n the heavy si lence that wei g h s o n t h e
voice, the oppress ive ted i u m o f a p l ace is com m u n i
cate d . " ' P rove it,' d e m a n d s the logocentric system
t h at the art h i storian wors h i p s . ' P rove that you sti l l
love

me. . . .

' " Joanna Frueh,

perfo rmance art

critic, is sayi n g it i n d i fferent i nto natio n s , vol u m es ,

a n d crescen dos-sparri n g w i t h the voice o f t h e aca
d e m i c d e m a n d , a n d ci rcl i n g a ro u n d the male : " Prove
it. . . . Prove that you sti l l love me . . . . " " P rove
that you sti l l love me . . . . "
The noise of o u r th roats that fi l l s the t i m e it takes to
convey t h e m e ssage com m u n i cates the noise of t h e
t h i n gs o r m akes the t h i n gs d i scerni b l e i n t h e i r e m p i ri
c a l p l u ra l ity. By t h e utterance of every i nsight w e h ave
i nto an e m p i rical partic u l a r-a particular c i rc l e , tree,
o r p i geon we contemp lated yesterday when we were
angry or j a u n d i ced-break i n g i nto the u n iversal ci rcu
lation o f password s , watchwords, a n d o rders; b y s i n
g l i n g out a partic u l a r i nterlocuto r ; a n d b y i nterru pti n g
t h e narrative o r t h e explanation with a n i n to n atio n , a n
attack a n d cadence, o r with t h e red u ndancies t h at
b l u r a n d i nterjectio n s t h at wai l , b ray, or stri ke speech
l ess ; we d o su cceed in com m u n i cati n g t h e d iffe re n ti a
tion , the p l u ra l i ty of facets a n d of perspectives and

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

the i ndefi n ite d i scern i b i l ity of e m p i rical particu lars.

Anyo n e who t h i n ks we are o n ly e m itt i n g noise i s one
w h o does n ot want to l iste n .
T h e o n e w h o u nd e rsta n d s i s n ot extract i n g t h e ab
stract fo rm out of t h e tone, t h e rhyth m, a n d the ca
d e n ces-t h e noise i nternal to t h e utterance, the ca
cophony i nternal to t h e e m ission of t h e m essage . H e
o r s h e i s also l iste n i n g to that i nternal n o ise-the rasp
i n g o r s m o l d e r i n g b reath, the hyperventi lati n g o r som
nolent l u n gs, the ru m b l i n gs and i nternal echoes-i n
w h i c h t h e m essage is part i c u l a rized and mate rial ized
and in w h i c h the e m p i rical real ity of someth i n g i n
defi n itely di scern i b l e, encou ntered

i n the path o f

o n e ' s own l ife, i s referred t o a n d com m u n i cated .

With t h i s i nternal noise it is t h e other, i n h i s o r h e r
m aterial ity, that stan d s forth a n d stan d s apart m a k i n g
appeals a n d d e m a n d s . The o t h e r i s n ot s i m ply t h e re
cu rrent f u n ction of appea l i n g to a n d contest i n g m e ;
h e o r s h e i s a n e m p i rical ly d i scer n i b l e v u l n e ra bi l ity
a n d i ntrusion . I n Visage Luciano Serio composed not
with words b u t with t h e sonorous e l e m e nts with
which words are formed-th e s i g h s, gasps, waver i ngs,
d ro n i n gs, h i s s i n gs, sobs, giggles, w h i m pe r i n gs, s n ivel
i ngs, screams, sno rt i ngs, pu rri n gs, m utte r i ngs, a n d
m oa n i n gs-o ut

of

which,

someti mes,

words

are

sha ped . He p l u n ged them i nto a vast space in which

e lectro n i c s o u n d s h u m, pou n d, s i n g, scatter, d i ss i pate
a n d where, fi n a l ly, t h e roar of mach i n es d rown s out

ALPHONSO LINGIS

t h e h u ma n voice. I n t h e m , Cathy B e rberian exposes

h e rself m o re than her i ntentions and j udgme n ts cou l d
h ave revealed-exposes h e r sensib i l ity, h e r s u scepti
b i l ity, h e r m o rtal ity, and the flux and scope of her car
nal existence.
As efficient causes of expressi o n s t h at convey i n for
matio n , we are i nterc h angea b l e . O u r s i n g u larity a n d
o u r i ndefi n ite d i scern i b i l ity i s fou n d i n , a n d i s heard
i n , o u r o utcries a n d o u r m u rm u rs, o u r l a u g hter a n d
o u r tears : t h e n o i se of l ife.

THE BACKGROUND NOISE

I f t h e n eosocratic com m u n i cati o n t heory of M i c h e l

Serres has n ot u nd erstood-has n o t wanted t o u n der
stand-the

noise

i nternal

to

com m u n icati o n :

the

p u l se a n d t h e wob b l e , t h e opacity of t h e t i m b e r a n d
d e nsity of t h e voice, t h e noise of l ife, the noise each
of u s i s in his o r her partic u larity; it h as also not u n
d erstood-has n ot wanted t o u nd e rstand-th e back
g ro u n d noise in the m id st of which we speak.
Advances in sou n d p roof i n g tec h n ol ogies a n d d i gital
record i n g p ro m i se the com p l ete e l i m i nation of back
g ro u n d n o i se . Sensory-de privation tan ks were fi rst i n
vented i n t h e '60s b y J o h n C . Li l ly w h o was worki n g
with d o l p h i n s a n d , l i ke every d i ve r, l oved t h e s i lence
and the b l iss o f deep-sea diving a n d t h o ught to d u p l i -

T H E M U RM U R O F TH E W O R L D

cate it on land . B u t t h e tec h n ology that e l i m i n ates t h e

noise also e l i m i n ates the com m u n icat i o n . I n the ab
sence of a u d ito ry, vi s u a l , and tactual backgro u n d s i g
n a l s , o n e no l o n ge r senses the bou n daries between
outside a n d i ns i d e , past and present, perception and
i m ages, a n d one soon h a l l u c i nate s . If the reception of
a d etermi nate signal i s i m possi b l e beyon d a certain
level of backgro u n d n o i s e , t h e i ntention to e m i t a de
ter m i n ate signal becomes u n realizable without a cer
tai n level of a m bient d ro n e to escalate, p u nctuate,
a n d red i rect. Recorded white noise-forest m u rm u rs ,
the r u m b l e of the city-was a d d e d t o space caps u l e s ;
the record i ngs a r e s o l d to terrestrials l ivi n g i n s o u n d
proofed apartments.
We u nd e rstan d that backgro u n d noise i s essential
to com m u n icatio n when we u n derstand that reception
in the com m u n i cati o n system of our bodies i s not t h e
passive exposi n g of a p re p rogra m med su rface o f s e n
s i b i l ity to o utside sti m u l i , b u t p i c k i n g a signal out of
t h e m u lt i p l i city of i rrelevant a n d conflicti n g signals.
Whe re the receptor organ can receive a wide variety
of s i g n a l s , perception is t h e active power to foc u s i n
o n , isolate, segregate, s h ape a fig u re , a n d red uce t h e
rest to i n d iffere n tiati o n . I f, e a c h t i m e w e l oo k , w e s e e
a fig u re sta n d i n g o u t agai n st t h e adjacent objects, t h i s
i s n ot d u e to t h e p hysical sti m u lation that i s b e i n g
spread across o u r ret i n a s ; it m ust b e d ue to a n active
power i n o u r gaze. S i n ce com m u n ication i s , for t h e
receiver, actively separat i n g a fig u re f r o m the back-

A L P H ON S O L I NG I S

g ro u n d , then i n t h e absence of t h e backgro u n d there

can be no fig u re either. If o n e looks i n to a closed ,
e l l i ptica l ly s haped box pai nted b l ac k a n d u n iformly i l
l u m i n ated with w h i te l ight, o n e can n ot s e e t h e b lack
a n d can n ot see the s u rfaces at a l l ; all one sees i s a
l u m i n o u s gray d e nsity. But if o n e t h e n sticks a wh ite
stri p of paper on the wall of that box, s u d d e n ly t h e
l ig ht becom e s transparent a n d the h u e of the m ed i u m
recedes a n d con d en ses i nto black o n the wal l s o f t h e
b o x . Whe n t h e psyc h o l ogist seats a s u bject i n a roo m
such that h e sees o n ly t h e homoge n e o u s su rface of a
b road wal l u n ifo r m l y i l l u m i nate d , t h e su bject can n ot
see how far it is from h i m , can n ot see a ny s u rface at
a l l , sees o n ly a m e d i u m i n d e pth about h i m , a n d can
n ot say w h at color it is. J o h n Cage o n ce e m e rged from
a sou n d p roof room to declare that t h e re was no s u c h
state as si lence.

In

t h at roo m

he

h eard t h e

rus

t l i ng, th ro b b i n g, whoos h i n g , buzzi ngs, ringi n gs , a n d

sq u eaki n gs with w h i c h the m ovements o f h i s m u scles
a n d g l a n d s reso u nded with t h e ripples a n d r u m bles of
t h e n ever-en d i n g movements of the atmosphere .
If t h e reception o f a dete r m i n ate s i g n al i s the segre
gat i o n of a sonorous field i nto f i g u re and backgro u n d
d r o n e , t h e e m ission of a determi nate s i g n a l forms i n
t h e h u m of the fie l d . Com m u n ication t h e o ry i d entifies
t h e backgro u n d h u m as a m u ltitud e of i rrelevant or
confl i cti n g s i g n a l s . To designate it, t h u s , as noise i s to
conceive it from t h e point of view of the i n d ividual

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

teleologically desti n ed to citize n s h i p i n an ideal re

p u b l i c m ax i m a l ly pu rged of t h e noise of l ife a n d of
t h e e m p i rical domai n-t h e m i racu lo u s G reece or the
totally tra n spare n t Rousseau i st society. We shall con
ceive a d i fferent u nd ersta n d i n g of t h e backgro u n d
n o i s e if w e put voca l i zatio n a m o n g u s i n t h e perspec
tive of evo l uti onary b i o logy.
O n e d ay, w h i le tryi n g to d rive in the chaotic traffic
of Teheran , with each move I tried to make p rovo k i n g
taps o n t h e h o r n s o f cars bes i d e , b e h i n d , a n d advanc
i n g toward m e , I remarked to a h itch- h i ke r I had
picked up, that after five b locks of t h i s I felt l i ke a
road l izard on bad a m p h etam i nes. O h , they are not,
l i k e us Westerners, u s i n g the horn as a warn i n g o r a
th reat, h e said . They a re l i k e q u a i l c l u c k i n g as they
feed on a ripe wheat fi e l d . They are, he m eant, creat
i n g a s o u n d envi ron me n t with w h i c h they sym b ioti
cally m e rge with one a n other. I u nd e rstood at o nce,
because my m i n d flashed back to t h e long n ights I
had d riven across Tu rkey a n d I ran when t h e n ext town
proved to take, n ot t h e h o u r I had calc u l ated , b u t six
h o u rs due to t h e devastated condition of t h e road and
the flooded rivers, a n d how I h ad thought that n i ght
d rivi n g in a car i s t h e absol ute form of herm itage that
civi l i zatio n had fi nally i nvented . When you are a l o n e
i n t h e m id d l e of t h e n i ght i n a h otel roo m i n a n a l i e n
cou ntry, y o u can n ot moan out you r l o n e l i n ess a n d
m isery w i t h o u t someone heari n g y o u o n the othe r
s i d e o f t h e wal l , b u t if you a r e d rivi n g n ights on the

ALPHONSO LINGIS

h ighway you can scream a n d n o n e of t h e cars cross i n g

y o u i n t h e opposite l a n e wi l l h e a r a n yt h i n g . W h e n I
d rive d i stances at n i ght, I , l i ke S i mo n Styletes on h i s
p i l la r i n t h e Egyptian d es e rts, i nvariably fal l i n to ex
tre m i st spi ritual exercises revolving a r o u n d the theme
Memento mori, reviewi n g the m ean i n g o r m ean i n g
l ess of my l ife i n t h e cos m i c voi d s a head . With the
tap p i ngs of t h e horns, t h e year n i n gs or o utcries of sol
itude p e n etrate t h e h u l l of roar with which one's car
e ncases its motio n , a n d m e rge a n d become com m o n .
When o n e l ives with b i rds o n e sees how t h e noise
level of t h e b i rd s keeps up with the noise level of t h e
h o u s e , w i t h t h e wi n d t h at beg i n s to w h isper a n d w h i s
tle across t h e s i d i ngs, with each n otch u p you tu rn t h e
vol u m e d i al o n you r record p l ayer. It i s t h e r u m b l e
a n d ras p i n g of t h e i n e rt t h i n gs that p rovokes t h e vo
calizat i o n of t h e a n i m a l s ; fish h u m with t h e streams
and b i rd s c h atter in t h e crac k l i n g of the wi ndy forest.
To l ive i s to echo the vi b ra n cy of t h i ngs. To be, fo r
material t h i ngs, is to reson ate. The re is sou n d i n
t h i n gs l i ke there i s warmth a n d cold i n t h i ngs, and
t h i ngs resonate l i ke t h ey i rradiate thei r warmth or
thei r col d . The quail a n d the al batross, t h e crows a n d
the h u m m i n g b i rd s , t h e coyotes a n d the s e a l s , t h e
schoo l i n g fish a n d the great w h a l e s , t h e crocodi les i n
frason ically a n d t h e pray i n g mantises u ltras o n i cally
conti n u e

and

reverbe rate

the

creaki n g

of

the

b ra n c h e s , the fl utteri n g of the leaves, t h e b u b b l i n g of

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

t h e creeks, t h e h i s s i n g of the marsh gasses, t h e w h i r

ring of t h e w i n d s, t h e s h ifti n g of the rocks, the grind
i n g of the earth's p l ates .
T h i s noise is not a n alytically decomposable, as com
m u n i cati o n theory wou l d have it, i nto a m u ltipl i city
of signals, i nformation-bits, that are i rrelevant or that
confl ict : that becom e, in Serres's word, equivocal.
The n o i se figu res as reson an ce a n d vocal ization t hat,
l i ke the scrap i n g wi n gs of crickets we hear, conta i n s
no m essage .12 O l ivier Messa i e n, i n h i s Chronochro
mie, d i d not compose i nto m u sic, i nto rhyt h m a n d
harmony a n d m e l ody, t h e e n o rm o u s q u a ntity of sig
nals b e i n g e m itted by t h e b i rd s of t h e j u n gle that h e
had i n h i s vast col lection o f tapes o f b i rd cries; we
hear in Chronochromie the s o u n d s of m etals-cym
bals, bel ls, b l oc ks, p i pes, a n d rasps; woo d s-mahoga
n i es, oaks, a n d b a mboos ; h i des-cords a n d d r u m s ;
fibe rs-wh i s k s ; a n d stri n gs, g u m s, a n d fl u id s trans
for m i n g i n to the wi l d exu ltant racket of m u ltitudes of
feathered and flyi n g t h i ngs. And as we l isten, it trans
forms aga i n i nto our own sounds.
For we too com m u n icate what we com m u n icate
with the backgro u n d n o i se, and we com m u n i cate the
backgro u n d n o i se . The com m u n ication takes p lace
when the v i b rancy of the land, the ocean s, and t h e
1 2 . Crickets commu nicate i n t h e ultrasonic range, too h i g h for
h u man ears to hear. Diane Ackerman, A Natural History of the
Senses (New York : Random House, 1 990),

p. 1 95.

A L P H ON S O L I NG I S

skies i s taken u p , con d e n sed , a n d u nfu rled i n t h e hol

lows of one's body, then released , and when o n e
hears i t s echo retu r n i n g w i t h t h e wind a n d the sea.
I n the h i g h lands of l ri a n J aya it seemed t h at n o mat
ter h ow l ate it was at n ig ht, t h e re was always someone
w h o cou l d n ot sleep a n d who spent his i ns o m n i a s i n g
i n g a n d d r u m m i n g . "Are t h ey p repari n g a ceremony
o r feast?" I asked a m issionary with whom I had taken
s helter and who was kee p i n g me u p for C h r i stmas
m i d n ight mass. " No , " h e a n swered. " I t goes o n every
n i ght. I n fact they are afraid of the n ight. They are l i ke
c h i l d re n , " h e said , with t h e weari n ess of h i s years. B u t
t h e i r voca l i zatio n s d i d n ot s u n d to m e t o b e i ss u i n g
o u t of b reasts w h e re fear t re m b l ed . It seemed t o m e
t h at t h e i r c h ants a n d yod e l i n gs picked u p a n d rever
berated s o u n d s t h e i r own th roats made, s o u n ds other
th roats m ad e , sounds the marshes and the b i rds of
t h e n ig h t and the winds were m a k i n g . J. M. G. Le
C l ez i o l ived l o n g a m o n g the I nd i ans in the C h iapas i n
Mexico a n d i n Panama; t o l ive a m o n g t h e m i s t o l ive
in the days a n d n ig h ts of t h e i r m u s i c : m usic made
with bamboo tu bes, perforated p i pe s , drums, she l l s ,
rattles, a n d a l so w i t h a t a u t fal setto u se o f the voice,
t h e t h roat h avi n g become a f l u te o r whistle. Le Clezio
heard i t in t h e m idst of t h e din of t h e rai n forest : i n
t h e barki n g o f dogs, the cries o f the spider m o n keys,
the agoutis, the hawks, the jaguars, a n d i n the vocal
ization of the frogs w h i c h fi l l s the whole l ength of ev
e ry n ig h t i n t h e rai n forest. It seemed to h i m t h at any

THE M U RM U R O F T H E WORLD

m us i co logist who j u st studied t h e tapes of I nd i a n m u

sic i n t h e laborato r i e s , fi l le d with synthesizers , i n Paris
o r Fran kfurt wou l d

i n evitably con nect t h e specific

scale s , pitches, rhyth m s , a n d p h rasi n gs of I n d ian m u

sic with cu ltu ral val ues a n d conventi o n s a n d wou l d try
to c o n n ect it with t h e i r myths and tragic c u l t u ral h i s
tory. But t h e i rs is a m usic m ade of cries a n d chants
without m elody or h armony, a m u sic not made for
d a n c i n g o r pleas i n g ; it i s a m usic with w h i c h they see,
hear, and feel in the anesthesia of the n ig h t . "Melodi
o u s m us i c i s fi rst t h e conviction that t i m e i s fl u i d , that
events rec u r, a n d that t here is what we call ' m ean
i n g . ' " B ut "fo r t h e I n d i a n , m u sic has n o m ean i n g . It
has n o d u ratio n . It h as n o begi n n i ng , n o e n d , n o c l i
m ax . " 13 Wo rds a r e p r i s o n s i n w h i c h t h e b reath o f l i fe
is i m p ri soned i n h u man form ; i n a m usic without mel
ody a n d without m ea n i n g , the I nd i a n h e a rs the ani
m a l , vegeta b l e , m i neral, a n d d e m o n i c real m s . One
had to l i sten to it there , in the n ights of the Lacandone
rai n forest, to u nd e rstan d that t h i s " m usic" is not an
aesthetic prod ucti o n , that i s , a creatio n of h u man sub
jectivities attempting to com m u n icate i m ma n e n t states
l i k e moods, fee l i n gs , val ues, or messages to oth e r h u
m a n subjectivities. I t i s a prolon gati o n o f t h e forest
m u rm u rs , the whispering sands, and the h u m of the
heave n ly bodies.
Separated

from

the

vocal izatio n s ,

r u m b l i ngs,

1 3 . J . M . G . L e Clezio, Hal (Geneva: S k i ra, 1971 ) , p p . 51 -52.

ALPHONSO LINGIS

creaki ngs, a n d whi rrings of a n i mate a n d i na n i mate n a

t u re , m us i c becomes a means of com m u n icati n g be
twee n h u ma n s o n l y . Words can be added to it, speak
i n g of t h e l o n e l i n ess of i n d ivid uals overcome t h ro u g h
h u ma n love. B u t th is com m u n ication i n a city maxi
mally p u rged of n o i se i s a recent creatio n . A friend
recently p l ayed for m e , o n h i s state-of-the-art e q u i p
ment, a CD d i s k of t h e o n l y complete reco rdi n g of t h e
Bali nese Kec h a k . L i ste n i n g t o it, I was a t o n ce aston
i s h ed a n d m e s m e rized b y t h e p u rity, transparency,
a n d beauty of the d i gital ly recorded a n d cleansed
sou nd s . But after a few m om e nts, I began to th i n k of
h ow a bstract it was ; one was h eari n g o n ly a tonal
m a p p i n g of the Kechak, l i ke read i n g t h e score of a
conce rto for harp without heari n g t h e t i n k l i n g cre
scendos or see i n g the e legant and aristocratic fig u re
of t h e harpist seated there i n t h e baroq u e concert h a l l
o f o l d P rague. I h ad never s u cceeded i n d o i n g any
t h i n g but i rritate anyo n e who was rid i ng in my car
w h i l e I had Bali nese o r J avanese m usic o n the tape
p l ayer, a n d I wou l d apologetica l l y explai n that, in fact,
I had myself come to be so captivated by t h i s m usic
because of t h e whole setti n g : drifti n g t h ro u g h t h e
dark a n d w e t j u n g l e after the day's work i s d o n e ;
i d l i n g fo r a n h o u r o r two a m o n g t h e gossi p i n g B a l
i n ese q u ite u nconcerned that t h e players h ave n ot yet
arrived two h o u rs after t h ey said they wou l d ; settl i n g
i nto t h e th ro b b i n g o f t h e frogs a n d n ight i nsects ; seat
i n g myself on the g ro u n d as t h e c i rc l e of seated m e n

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

expanded a n d t h e p ri est l it t h e torches that awaken

the m o n stro u s fig u res of the d e m o n s that guard the
tem p l e com po u n d while t h e i ncense sti rs t h e spi rits
that s l u m be r in the flower i n g trees a n d vi nes, and t h e
g l i ste n i n g bare b o d i e s o f the m e n massed o n the
g ro u n d beg i n to sway as the trance, ancient as t h e
s e a , s p reads a m o n g them , then abruptly t h e i r a n i m a l
outcries greeti n g t h e apparition o f t h e g o d s weav i n g
a m o n g t h e m : d a n c i n g g o d s , b o u n d i n exq u is ite s i l ks
and

bati ks,

the i r

heads

crowned

with

d e l icate

stem me d flowers a n d s m o l d e r i n g sticks of i ncense

a n d t h e i r jewe l s t h rowi n g off r u by a n d sapph i re flash
fires. The d igital record i ng , cleansed n ot o n ly o f the
noise of the reprod uctive equ ip m e n t b u t of the back
g ro u n d
thought,

noise

of

the

reprod u ce

perfo rmance,

p e rfectly

the

does

sounds

n ot,
of

the

Kechak d a n ce ; it creates m usic. Western civi l izatio n

w h i c h created, i n t h e e i g hteenth centu ry, t h e m a rket
eco n o m y a n d , i ndeed, eco n o m i c activity; which cre
ated the abstract u n iversal essence of l i b i d o ; which
created people as fem a l e a n d as m a l e ; w h i c h created
the val u e-free objective representati o n of natu re a n d
h i story a n d c u ltu re ; w h i c h created scu l ptu re out of Af
rican fetishes a n d created pai nti n gs out of tang'kas,
those cosmic d iagra m s a n d i n stru m ents for cente r i n g
i n meditatio n fou n d i n Ti b etan g o mpas ; w h i c h created
art, art for art's sake, o u t of ritual a n d civic ceremon
ies;

h as

now created

m usic o u t of the

Bal i nese

Kec h a k . The Bali n ese, for their part, have n o word in

Mlt#

ALPHONSO LI NGIS

t h e i r l a n g u age for art a n d d o n ot l isten to t h e m us i c ;

a t n ight i n t h e t e m p l e compo u n d , they rock t h e i r
squal l i n g c h i l d re n , n u rse t h e m , c h at w i t h n e i g h bo rs ,
go o u t t o get somet h i n g t o eat, ad m i re a n d severely
criticize the p e rfo r m a n ce of the fel l ow-vi l lager who is
danci n g the Rama o r the S ita, fall i nto trance, come
out of it, are tra n s u bstantiated i nto gods, d e m o n s , riv
ers, sto r m s , a n d n ight. I n fact, when Bach com posed,
rehearse d , a n d d i rected a cantata, he was not s i m p ly
creat i n g m u s i c ; h e was prais i n g God, ear n i n g m erit
and salvatio n , payi n g for the u p ke e p of his twelve
c h i l d re n , com peti n g with Tel e m a n n a n d Pu rce l l , e n
h a n c i n g t h e status o f h i s p r i nce-patron a n d h i s own
stat i o n , a n d contri b u t i n g to a s u ccessf u l C h ristmas
feast for a l l the tow n .
The creation , i n o u r t i m e , o f m us i c , l i ke every c u l
tu ra l creation , i s a n i n esti m a b l e contri b ution t o the
wealth of our h e ritage a n d makes, N i etzsch e wou l d
say, t h i s o l d e a rth a sweeter p lace t o l ive o n . The m u
s i c was p ro d u ced by t h e e l ectro n i c e l i m i n ation of a l l
t h e m a rg i n al a n d s u b l i m i n al s i g n a l s com i n g from t h e
n o n m u sical sonorous medi u m : the c h atter o f the vi l
l a g e , t h e p e o p l e , a n d the h i story; t h e remote m u r
m u rs a n d r u m b l i ngs of t h e gods a n d d e m o n s ; the
bark i n g d ogs a n d t h e crow i n g roosters prematu rely
awakened from thei r s o m n o l e n ce b y the dawn t h ey
see fl ickeri n g from the torc h e s ; t h e n ight i nsects a n d
t h e frogs ; t h e ru st l i n g o f leave s ; t h e clatter o f the
rai n ; t h e restlessness of t h e ai r c u rrents i n t h e n ight

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

s k i e s ; a n d the creak i n g of the rock strata-th e back

g ro u n d n o i s e .
W e t o o d o n ot voca l ize a n d mark su rfaces only be
cause we h ave som e m essage to tra n s m i t . S i g n ificant
speec h , utterances where one can , l i ke Serres, d i sti n
guish t h e cal l i phony from t h e cacop ho ny, the m es
sage from the noise, i s o n ly an a bstract part of speec h .
When gram marians a n d l i ng u i sts analyze any text,
they a re asto n i shed at h ow m uch red u ndancy there i s
i n a l l speaki n g ; h o w m uch o f what w e say to o n e a n
o t h e r i s repetiti o n , c h o r u s , m u rm u r, a n d d rawn-out
resonance. We are no d i fferent from the celestial
b i rd s , who c h i m e in with one a nother but k n ow that
it i s o n ly occasionally, in all this effervescent racket,
that some i nfo rmatio n about a d e lecta b l e k i n d of seed
that got put in t h e d i s h today or some danger is b e i n g
add ressed to them .
You were doz i n g i n you r roo m a n d you woke, won
deri n g what time it was . You thought, l i ke t h at d i shev
eled fig u re on a bed in the French cartoon that you
had g l u ed at eye view of you r p i l l ow, "Si j e conti n u e
com m e c;a, j e n e serai jamais m aftre d u m o n d e ! " ( I f I
keep on l i ke t h i s , I n ever w i l l be the master of t h e
wo rld ! ) . You t r i e d t o g e t t h e b lood sti rri n g a n d some
movement starte d , you s h uffled to t h e kitc h e n , s hak
ing up some t h i n gs o n t h e way, m a k i n g t h e d oo r creak
by o pe n i n g it with a th rust, so as to get some move
ment in the dead s i l e n ce of the h o u s e . You came
upon

you r

h o u s emate

s prawled

torp i d ly

on

the

ALPHONSO LINGIS

cou c h ,

l i ke a cold-blooded frog i n m idafternoon :

" H ey, m a n , l i ke, whatch a d o i n g, h u h ?" Where is t h e

i nformatio n - b i t ? You

s a i d t h a t to g e t some

n ight

s o u n d s goi n g , s o m e rhyt h m goi n g , some h o p p i n g

about starte d .
I t i s out o f a n d i n t h e m idst o f t h e reverberation o f
a m b i e nt m aterial ity t h at t h e utterances we make get
shaped, and t h ey get sent forth to retu rn to it. The
res o n a n ce of t h i n gs a n i mate a n d i na n i m ate i s in the
red u ndancies, t h e d rawn-out vowel s a n d consonants,
t h e h i sses a n d groans a n d ejac u l ations, and t h e bab
ble and m u m b l i n g a n d m u rm u r that i s the basso con
t i n u o of all our m essage-laden utteran ces .
C o m puter tec h n o logy, d riven by t h e p i l ot-i n d u stries
of t h e m i l itary- i n d u strial com p l ex, places top p riority
on tra n s m itt i n g t h e m essage as effectively, efficiently,
and effortl essly as possi b l e . It i s com puter tec h n ol o gy
that s haped a n d fo r m s conte m p o rary com m u n ication
theory.14 B ut so l ittl e of what we say to one another
m a k es any sense ! So l ittl e of it makes any pretense to
be taken seriously, so m uch of it is s i m ple m a l a rkey,
in w h i c h we i n d u lge o u rselves with the same warm
visceral p l eas u re that we i n d u lge in belch i n g a n d pass
i n g a i r . It rea l l y is, N ietzsc h e l o n g ago poi nted out,
bad taste to make serious p ro n o u n ce m ents a n d work
o u t syl logistically val i d a rg u m e nts in civi l ized com14. T h e late works o f Michel Serres a r e so many contributions
toward a reinstated empiricism. See, among others, Les cinq sens
(Pari s : Grasset, 1985).

T H E M U RM U R O F T H E W O R L D

pany. So m uc h of l a n g u age added to i n d u stry a n d e n

terprises t h a t are program m e d by t h e laws of nature
or rational scie n ce a n d t h at operate a l l by t h e m selves,
so m uc h of l a n g u age added to f u m b l i n gs and b reak
downs and even d i sasters has n o othe r fu nctio n than
to

provoke

laughte r .

Laughter

m ix i n g

in

moans,

howls, screams i nto t h e racket of t h e world . As m u ch

of what we say when we e m b race we say to release
o u r s i g h s and o u r sobs i nto the rai n s and the seas.
All

these

sta m meri n gs ,

exclamations,

s l u rrings,

m u r m u rs , ru m b l i n gs , coo i ngs, a n d l a u g h te r , all this

n o i se we make when we are together m a kes it possi
b l e to view u s as strugg l i n g , together, to j a m t h e u n
equ ivocal voice of t h e outs i d e r : t h e faci l itator o f com
m u n ication , t h e p rosopope i a of maximal e l i m i n ation
of n o i se , so as to h ea r t h e d i stant r u m b l e of t h e world
and its d e m o n s i n t h e m idst of the i d ea l city of h u ma n
comm u n icati o n .

Ml+

lJn e

is called to t h e deathbed of a parent, a n d o n e ,

faci n g her, does n o t k n ow what t o say. Yet o n e h a s to

say somet h i n g .
The other has arrived at the l i m it-the l i m it of h e r
l ife-when she can d o noth i n g m o re . B u t s h e h as yet
t h i s to d o : to d i e . It is s o m eth i n g s h e has to d o , alone,
a n d without a ny experience to appeal to, any means
o r resou rces. It i s s o m eth i n g s h e , n evertheless, has to
do a n d wi l l do well or badly, b ravely or i n col lapse,
resol utely o r cowe r i n g . She has always k nown s h e wi l l
h ave t o do t h i s , h a s often thought o f i t , h a s often
wil l ed to d i e t h e o n e way or the othe r . For every t i m e
s h e d i d somet h i n g b ravely, o r coward ly, it was a n a n
ticipati o n of t h i s fi nal confrontatio n . Ari stotle, who
wrote t h e fi rst treatise i n t h e West o n rational ethics,
l i sted cou rage fi rst of all t h e v i rtues. It i s n ot s i m ply
fi rst on t h e l ist of e q u ivalent v i rt u es ; it is t h e tra n scen
d ental v i rtue, the con d it i o n for t h e poss i b i l ity of all
the v i rtues. For no one can be truthfu l , o r magnani
m o u s , o r a friend, o r even congenial i n conversation ,
without co u rage. And every cou rage is an act d o n e i n

ALPHONSO LINGIS

ris k : of one's reputati o n , of one's j o b , of one's pos

sess i o n s , of one's l ife .
And you , called u po n to be there when the other i s
a t t h e l i m it, a n d also at the o ri g i n , o f t h e v i rtues, t h e
powers, that a l i fe can h ave, fi n d you rself a t t h e l i m it
of t h e powers of langu age .
The n u rs es say, " I am so glad you have com e ! "
They k now you can d o , m ust d o , someth i n g t h ey can
not do-say somet h i n g to t h e dyi n g one. What can
one say? Anyt h i n g one tries to say sounds vac u o u s
a n d a b s u rd i n one's m o u t h . It s e e m s t o you that t h e
problem i s not s i m p ly that you d o n ot have t h e s k i l l s
i n spea k i n g o r that y o u can not c o m e u p with t h e right
t h i n gs to say because you h ave no experience i n this
kind of situatio n , b u t that langu age itself does n ot
have t h e powers. There is not, i n the words a n d t h e
combi n atory poss i b i l ities of language, the power to
say what has to be s a i d . Yet you have to be there, a n d
yo u h ave t o say s o m eth i n g . You have n ever b e e n
m o re c l e a r a b o u t anyt h i n g . The re a r e those who d o
n ot go, t o t h e bedside o f t h e dyi n g o n e , d e m o ra l ized
by t h e terri b l e i m potence of language to say anyth i n g .
It seems t o t h e m that, i n thei r speech lessness, t h ey
are carried away a l ready i nto the region of death a n d
si l e n c e with the othe r . B u t if y o u s o m e h ow fi nd t h e
cou rage t o go, y o u a r e s u re y o u have t o be there a n d
have t o say s o m et h i n g . What i s i mperative i s t h at you
b e there and spea k ; what you say, in t h e e n d , hardly
matters. You end up sayi n g a nyt h i n g-" l t ' l l be alright,

T H E E L E M E N T A L T H AT F A C E S

Mom "-wh i c h you k now i s a stupid t h i n g to say, even

an i n s u l t to her i ntel l i ge n c e ; she k n ows she i s dyi n g
a n d i s m o re b rave than you . S h e does not reproach
you for what you said ; in the end it doesn't matter,
what was i mp e rative was o n ly that you say someth i ng ,
anyt h i n g . That you r h a n d a n d you r voi ce extend t o h e r
i n acco m pa n i ment t o t h e n ow h e re s h e i s d rifti n g o n
to, that t h e warmth a n d t h e ton e of you r voice come
to h e r as h e r own b reath gives way, a n d that t h e l ight
of you r eyes m eet h ers that are tu rned to where there
is n ot h i n g to see.
Everyon e has k n own s u c h a situatio n in w h i c h t h e
rift between the sayi n g a n d t h e s a i d opens u p . A situa
tion i n w h i c h t h e say i n g , essential a n d i mperative,
separates from the sai d , w h i c h somehow it no longer
o rd e rs a n d hardly req u i re s .
I n the rational com m u n ity t h e othe r situatio n i s t h e
n o rm a l o n e-th at where w h at i s said i s the essential
a n d t h e sayi n g i n essenti a l , t h at where what i s i m pe ra
tive i s o n ly t h at whoever s peaks, h e say this.
S u c h is the situati o n when there is not s i m ply, as i n
every com m u n ity, a com m o n stock of observations,
maxi m s fo r action , a n d b e l i efs that are p i c ked u p from
othe rs and passed o n to oth e rs . The rational comm u
n i ty p ro d u ces, a n d i s p ro d u ced by, a com mo n d i s
cou rse i n a m uc h stronger s e n s e . The i nsights of i nd i
viduals a r e for m u lated i n u n iversal catego ries, such
that t h ey are detached from t h e h ere-now i n d ex of t h e

ALPHONSO LINGIS

o n e who fi rst for m u lated them . D i scourse sets out to

s u pply a. reason , that is, a m o re g e n e ra l for m u l atio n ,
an e m p i ri ca l law o r a p ractical maxi m , from w h i c h t h e
observations a n d p ractices cou l d be d e d u ced . Estab
l i s h i n g the e m pi rical l aws and practical princi ples d i s
tri b u tes the i nsights of i n divi d u a l s to al l . A n d then o n e
sets o u t t o s u pply a reason f o r t h e reason-the theory
fro m w h i c h t h e laws a n d t h e p ri n c i p l e from which t h e
m ax i m s c o u l d b e d e d u ced . T h e s e fu n ction to contest
the val idity of all statem ents that attest to si m p ly i n d i
vid ual observations a n d b e l i efs. The com mo n d i s
cou rse is not si mply an acc u m u lation of i nfo rmation
a n d b e l i efs a n d maxi m s , b u t a rational system

in

w h i c h , i d e a l ly, everyt h i n g that i s said i m p l i cates the

laws a n d theories of rational d i scou rse. The n , when
any rational agent speaks, h e speaks as a representa
tive of the com mo n d i scourse. The law h e for m u lates
for h i s own

u nd ersta n d i n g and

p ractice

l egislates

for the d iscou rse of eve ryon e , n ot because of any

force or authority in h i s parti c u l a r voice, but because
the con siste n cy a n d t h e coherence, the cogency, of
the

i ntegra l ly o n e

rati o n a l d i scou rse i mposes t h i s

statem e nt.
When o n e goes to someone a n d asks him to speak,
t h e i m perative one l ays on h i m i s a n i m perative that
h e gove rn h i s speech with the i mperative that regu
lates the c o m m o n d iscou rse and makes it rational.
One goes to t h e doctor, t h e vete ri narian, o r t h e elec
trician , a n d o n e fi rst assu res oneself that h e really

T H E E L E M E N TAL T H AT FA C E S

speaks as a representative of the c o m m o n d i scou rse

of rational c u ltu re . You ask, d iscreetly, a few q u es
tions :

Doctor, what about this J apanese research I

read about last week on pacemakers? Docto r, I ju st

read this arti c l e about l e u k e m i a in cats a n d thought to
come to ask you about my Pers i a n , S i mo n e , who
seem s to be ai l i n g . Sir, I read about these n ew h alo
gen l i g hts ; do you th i n k t h ey m ight be bad for the
eyes, like t h e o l d fl u o rescent l ights? What you are do
i n g i s c h ec k i n g out whether t h e person you are con
su lti n g m ight not be an eccentric-an e l ectrician who
d oes not keep up with k n owledge in his fie l d , a veteri
n arian who has his own theory about vi ruses that is
i n co m pati b l e with t h e general t h eo ries of today's b i o l
ogy. What t h e r e i s t o be s a i d is i n t h e l ite rature ava i l
able i n t h e p u b l i c l i b raries; o n e is o n ly as k i n g h i m t o
efficiently s p e a k as t h e spokesman f o r what o n e cou l d
o neself d i scover i n t h e l iterature.
There i s somet h i n g to be said . In p r i n c i p l e , there i s ,
i n the com m o n d isco u rse of rational c u l t u re , some
t h i n g t h at h as to be said, even if it is that t h e cu rrent
state of scie nce does n ot k n ow the a n swer to the
q u estio n you fo r m u l ated-because the cancer i s i n
t h e b i l e d uct i n t h e m id st o f a tang l e o f vital orga n s
a n d can n ot be removed by s u rgical i nc i s i o n w i t h to
day's i n stru m e nts, because test i n g fo r eye damage
from h alogen l a m ps will req u i re a few years a n d t h ey
have j u st come i nto prod u ction last year.
When one s peaks to the doctor, the vete rinarian, or

MM

ALPHONSO LINGIS

t h e e lectricia n , o n e speaks as a representative of t h e

com m o n rational d i scou rse. O n e d o e s n o t s p e a k t o
t h e oncologist a b o u t the obsc u re intuition of fate i n
t h e i nd i v i d u a l ci rcu m stances o f o n e ' s l ife o n e has l o n g
felt th ro u g h o n l y i n ward p re m o n it i o n s . O n e d o e s n ot
speak to o n e ' s vete ri n arian as a senti m ental person
who n eeds this cat as a c h i l d su bstitute. One m ight,
to be su re, when outside in the h a l l m a k i n g out the
check, say to h i m , with a foo l i s h s m i l e , Doctor see
what you can d o with t h i s cat, I love him l i ke my own
baby. The d octo r will s m i l e i n d u lgently, a n d assu re
you he wi l l do whatever scien ce can d o .
S p ea k i n g as a rep resentative o f the c o m m o n d i s
cou rse of rational c u ltu re

is what we call serious

speec h . The seriou s n ess in it is the weight of t h e ratio

nal i m p e rative that determ i nes what i s to be said . Stu
d ents demand of their teac h e rs that they form u late,
without eccentricities, t h e state of the art of t h e i r par
t i c u l a r d i sci p l i n e s ; o n e expects that what one learns
in the science s , i n the h u man ities, a n d in t h e tech no
logies wi l l i m p l icate t h e u n i ve rsal princi ples of t h e ra
tional i ntegrati on of k n owledge. The vocal ization of
what has to be said i n t h i s partic u l a r voice, by t h i s
parti c u l a r speaker, i s i n essential ; the very sayi n g i s i n
essenti a l , s i n ce w h a t has to b e said exists i n the l itera
t u re in the p u b l i c l i b raries, o r if n ot, i s i m p l icated al
ready

in

the

gove r n i n g

categories,

theories,

and

m ethods of rational d i sc o u rse.

We also i n d u lge i n eccentricities of d i scou rse-ou r

T H E E L E M E N T A L T H AT F A C E S

docto r i n q u i res after o u r golf gam e ; o u r vete r i narian

s m i les i n d u lgently over our n e u rotic sent i m entality.
That i s part, n o d o u bt, of t h e pleas u re of s peak i n g in
a com m u n ity-t h e eccentric tropes we put in our pro
fessio n a l rheto ric, the odd m etaphors and far-fetched
adjectives we attach to t h e operative n o u n s , the sex
ual metaph o rs we i n d u l ge i n , with w h i c h we fab ricate
a p u b l i c ego out of ecce ntricities. We do n ot take a l l
that ve ry seriously, n o r do w e tak e it t o be i m perative .
The l i m it-situation we i n vo ked-when o n e of t h e
com m u nity i s d eparti n g f r o m a m o n g us, w h e n some
one i s at t h e end of his o r h e r l i fe-is also a situatio n
i n w h i c h w e w h o go t o thei r s i d e , w h o have to go to
thei r s i d e , fi n d o u rselves at the l i m it of speec h . This is
not where t h e necessity of language ends in s i lence,
b u t w h e re it i s n o longer what has to be said that i s
the essentia l , a n d t h e sayi n g a n d t h e o n e t h at says i n
essenti a l : now you fi n d y o u have t o be t h e re a n d h ave
to speak . You have to say somet h i n g-someth i n g that
langu age can not say, somet h i n g that is n ot i n t h e re- .
s o u rces of c o m m o n d iscou rse to be a b l e to say, a n d
somet h i n g t h a t i s , i n t h e e n d , i n essential . I t i s t h e say
i n g that is i m perative : you r h a n d extended to the o n e
w h o i s departi n g , t h e l ight of you r eyes m eeti n g t h e
eyes of t h e o t h e r that are tu rned to w h e re there is
n ot h i n g to see, a n d t h e warmth of you r vo ice b rought
to h e r as h e r own b reath gives way. T h i s situatio n i s
not o n ly the e n d o f language-the last m oment w h e n

M#M

ALPHONSO LINGIS

a l l we have to say to o n e another e n d s i n the s i l en ce

a n d d eath of t h e o n e to whom it h as to be said a n d i n
t h e speech lessness a n d sobs of the o n e who has come
to say s o m eth i n g . It i s also the begi n n i ng , the beg i n
n i ng o f co m m u n icatio n .
When w e form that closed com m u n ity that i s t h e
com m u n ity of lovers, w e often h ave the i m p ression
that our l ove does n ot n eed words . W h e n people fall
in l ove, t h ey seem to have so m uch to say to one a n
oth e r, occupyi n g the tel e p h o n e l o n g i nto fatigue of
t h e h a n d to h o l d it a n d exhaustion of t h e ears to l is
ten . O n e fee l s a c o m p u l s i o n to fo r m u late t h e most
trivial deta i l s of one's day, both as a k i n d of test-if
s h e real l y wi l l l i sten to a l l t h i s , w h i c h n obody at the
office wou l d , s h e real ly m u st care fo r m e-and as a
rhetoric of sed u ctio n , an e n te rp rise of m a k i n g every
deta i l of o n e ' s day i nto an adven t u re or an entertai n
ment. B u t once thei r love i s assu red and seal ed , they
l i sten to m us i c , watch television , or giggle nons ens e.
The talk t h at does g o o n i s serious-s h e speaks of her
p rofessional wo rries a n d a m b itions an d h e speaks of
h o u se h o l d rep a i r p ro b l e m s a n d of h i s p rogress toward
beco m i n g a successfu l scientist or b u s i n essman, a
rep resentative of science or com m e rce. This serious
tal k seem s outside their love; nobody t h i n ks you re
al ly have to tal k to you r lover about l ab oratory or of
fice probl e m s at al l .
I t i s w h e n t h e i r love i s dyi n g that they feel some-

T H E E L E M E N TA L T H A T F A C E S

t h i n g e l s e . "You have to say somet h i n g ! About u s ! I

d o n 't wan t to hear any m o re about you r boss o r about
what s i d i n g to put o n t h e house ! We have to tal k
about us ! " You real l y d o h ave t o say somet h i n g . You .
And you h ave n o i d ea what you can say. Even if you
went th ro u g h t h i s before, when a love you then k n ew
d i e d . You fi nd you rself sayi n g anyt h i n g-say i n g stu p i d
t h i ngs. It doesn 't matter-you have to say somet h i n g .
And then you g e t t h e i d e a that th is h ad h appened
before-when you starte d . I n a class it did n ot m atter
if it was you , or a n ot h e r student, that spoke in the
s e m i n a r . What was essential was that the m atter got
d i sc u ssed . The fu nction of the sem i na r was that t h e
professor fo r m u late t h e p ro b l e m out of t h e c u rrent
state of the d ebate in pol itical p h i losophy o n t h e
q u estio n of rights. The students were t o form u late o b
jecti o n s , alternatives, to t h e t h eses n ow b e i n g a d
vanced . Sometimes you k new what was to b e sai d , b u t
l et a n o t h e r student say it, because a sem i n a r i s n ot a
p l ace for you to be o n an ego trip or becom e the p ro
fessor's favo rite. The n , with t h e adjacent stu de nt,
some other relati o n s h i p began to form-you fou n d
you were begi n n i n g t o b e lovers. Then , w h e n ever you
were together, you had to say someth i n g . What it was
hardly mattered ;

what was essential was that you

spoke, that the warmth of you r voice accompany h e r

i n t h e u ncharted zone o f passion o utside the class
roo m in w h i c h she was d rifti n g , that the tone of you r

ALPHONSO LINGIS

voice resonate i n h e r languorous th roat, a n d that t h e

l ight of you r eyes m eet h e r s , u nfoc u sed on t h e task
and the objectives, gaz i n g toward the erotic darkness.
There are then two e ntries i n to com m u n icati o n
t h e o n e by w h i c h o n e depersonal izes one's v i s i o n s
a n d i n si ghts, fo r m u l ates them i n t h e terms of t h e com
m o n rational d i scourse, and speaks as a rep resenta
tive, a spokesperson , e q u iva l e n t and i nterc h an geab l e
with others, o f what h a s t o be sai d . T h e other entry
i nto com m u n ication is that i n w h i c h you fi nd it is you ,
you sayi n g s o m et h i n g , that i s essential .
It is t h e last warm day of the autu m n ; t h e m ot h e r
h a s t o go to t h e park w i t h h e r c h i l d . S h e forgets a l l
t h e letters s h e has t o write a n d t h e confe re n ce s h e
h as t o p repare for t h i s wee k e n d ; s h e forgets a l l h e r
fri e n d s . S h e i s tota l ly absorbed i n h e r task . S h e i s
seated a t t h e poo l , a n d a rai n bow gleams across t h e
fou ntai n i n t h e l ate-autu m n s u n . S h e i s p o i n t i n g t o t h e
rai n bow i n t h e poo l . H e r eyes are o pe n wide a n d
g l ea m i ng , j u b i lation trem b l i n g t h e coax i n g l i nes o f h e r
mouth . S h e h a s t o l ead h i s eyes t o i t . Th i s d ay. H i s
eyes a r e too you n g t o be able t o s e e t h e rai n bow i n
t h e s ky. Next year i t wi l l be too l ate; h e w i l l be i n
k i n de rgarten , with eyes al ready jaded b y t h e elec
tro n i c rai n bows o n telev i s i o n scre e ns ; h e will have to
l o o k at books with p ictu re s assoc i ated with the l etters
of the a l p h abet. S h e h as to fix the foc u s of h i s eyes
a n d teach h i m to see it. S h e h as to teach h i m t h e

T H E E L E M E N TA L T H A T F A C E S

word : rai n bow. Rai n bow i n t h e fou nta i n . He has to

t h e l earn t h e word a n d t h e won d e r . S h e is wholly con
centrated with t h e d ifficu lty a n d the u rgency of the
task . She watches with anxiety a n d j u b i lation as the
won d e r fi l l s his eyes , his eyes beco m i n g wet with
laug hter, u nti l s h e sees the rai n bow o n them .
What is it t h at speaks i n t hese ter m i n al a n d i naugu
ral situatio n s ? Not the ego as a rational m i n d , as a rep
resentative of u n iversal reason that possesses the a
priori categories a n d the a priori forms of the ratio n a l
organ ization of sensory i m p ressi o n s . What speaks i s
someone i n h i s o r h e r material ity a s an earth l i n g ; o n e
that b reathe s , s i g h s , a n d vocalizes i n t h e ru m bl e of
the city and t h e m u r m u rs of n atu re ; one whose b lood
i s warm with t h e warmth of the sun and the ardors of
t h e n ight. O n e whose flesh i s made of earth-d ust
that s h a l l ret u rn to d ust-who stan d s faci n g a n other
with the s u p port of t h e earth r i s i n g u p in h i m o r h e r ;
o n e whose face i s made of l ight a n d s h adow a n d
w h o s e eyes a re made o f l ight a n d tears.
We speak of a l i e n s in our cou ntry, u nd ersta n d i n g
b y t h a t peo p l e w h o do n o t share o u r lang u age, w h o
d o n o t k now the n a m e s w e u se t o designate t h i n gs
a n d resou rces, who do not u n de rstand o u r laws a n d
o u r p r i n c i p l e s of behavior a n d etiq u ette, a n d w h o
therefore d o n ot partici pate w i t h u s i n b u i l d i n g t h e
wor k t h a t i s o u r com m o n civi l ization . W e also speak
of the a l i e n s that this wor k can make of those who
partici pate in i t ; t h e a l i e n at i o n d i agnosed by Marx is

Mi+

ALPHONSO LI NGIS

t h e d ispossess i o n of t h e prod u cts of one's labor, i n

w h i c h o n e h ad i nvested o n e ' s own properties-o n e ' s
i ntell igence, one's i magi n ation , o ne's s k i l l s , a n d t h e
forces of one's m u scles.
But there i s also a n other a l i enation-an a l ienation
from the e l e m e nts. We go to p laces n ot o n ly fo r the
d i scou rse t h at c i rc u l ates there-t h e scientific com m u
n i ty asse mb l e d there o r t h e writers' colony-bu t for
t h e s u n , for t h e wide-open skies, for t h e tropical m o n
s o o n s o r f o r t h e d ry spar k l i n g a i r , for the desert o r for
t h e ocean . S o m et i m es when we go, we fi n d o u rselves
i m m ed i ately at h o m e and resolve to stay there , even
if we h ave n o work there, k now no o n e , and even do
not k n ow thei r language. B u t i n most cases, we h ave
to appeal to others to m a k e o u rselves at h o m e . We
appeal to t h e others to h e l p us be at h o m e i n t h e de
sert, in t h e rai n forest, in t h e tropics, in the t u n d ra ,
a n d i n t h e ocean . And

i n c h i l d h ood, and

i n the

strange n octu rnal reg i o n s o f t h e e rotic, a n d i n the

s hadow of death that adva n ce s .
Thi s com m u n icatio n i s other than and prior to, a n d
it d o u b l e s u p o u r com m u n ication as rep resentatives
of the rational com m u n ity. It remains i mperative when
t h e other, with whom we had o r n ot did not have a
l a n g u age i n com m o n , is d eparti n g . This com m u n ica
tion t h at we all k n ow has not been d i se n gaged by o u r
p h i l osophies o f language .
Whi l e classical episte m o l ogy e n deavored to i nven-

T H E E L E M E N TA L T H AT F A C E S

tory t h e m e n ta l o pe ratio n s that i d e ntify, d i sti n g u i s h

a n d relate objects, o u r p h i losophies of language h ave
set out to s h ow that these operatio n s are p e rformed
in speech acts. The com m u n ication by w h i c h o u r own
i n d ivi d u al field of perception gets i n tegrated with
those of others i s viewed as the m ea n s by w h i c h o u r
m i n d s get extended beyon d t h e range o f th i n gs that
o u r own sense o rgans can reac h , to the wo rld of ob
jects i d e ntifiable by a l l .
Wh i l e classical e p i stemology took s e n s i b i l ity t o re
cord an u n struct u red flux of colors, l ights, s hadows,
tones, and p ressu res, today the p h e n o m en o logy of
percept i o n d e m o n strates that perception i s , from t h e
start,

perception

of

things,

structu res,

conto u rs ,

paths, a n d landscapes . The p h e n o m enology of per

ception isolates the structu res and dynamics of per
ception , both from the p hysio logy o f n e u ra l cond uc
tion

and

fro m

subsequent

cogn itive

operatio n s .

Before w e i d entify someth i n g w i t h a word a n d a con

cept, it a l ready takes form before our eyes and o u r
exp l o r i n g hands a s a u n i t o r a com p l ex o f u n its. You
open a box someone has mai l ed you , a n d you see a
t h i n g b u t n o h ave idea what it is o r what it is cal l ed .
You d o n ot j u st experience reti nal i m p ri nts o n the
separate rods a n d con es of yo u r eyes a n d pressu res i n
you r own fi n g e rs . You pe rceive a t h i n g with its own
size a n d s hape a n d observe its balance, symm etry,
colors , s o l i d i ty, a n d grai n .
Each t h i n g that rises i n rel i ef i n a sen sory f i e l d ,

ALPHONSO LINGIS

named o r n ot, h as a feedback effect o n the subse

q ue n t patterns t h at form in p e rceptio n . Anth ropolo
gist Col i n T u rn b u l l tel ls of tak i ng a pygmy friend to
t h e open savan n a h , w h e re h e saw a d i stant elephant
as t h e size of a mosqu ito. Eyes that h ad learned to see
in t h e d e pt h of the rai n forest, where the gaze i n ev
e ry d i rection h ad always been b locked wit h i n twenty
feet by a n other tree tru n k a n d where the skies had
always been s p l i ntered by t h e forest canopy, were n ot
a b l e to see t h e s m a l l fig u re as a h uge elephant at a
remote d i stan c e .
B u t t h e system of objects w e i d e ntify w i t h o u r
speech acts a n d relate with rational d i scou rse also has
a feed back effect o n our perception . Others have di
rected our visio n-with wo rds . We are told how to
look a n d given t h e names of what to look for. Some
one who learns t h e l a n g u age of meteorology sees the
skies d i fferently than before; someone who learns the
names fo r t h i ngs of a n Amazo n i a n h u nti n g-and-gath
e r i n g tribe sees the rai n forest d ifferently from the
Western bota n i st a n d b i ologist .
The p h e n o m e n o l ogy o f perception i n recent d e
cades h as been m uch occu pied with t h i s feed back
phenomenon

betwe e n

perception

and the speech

acts that i d entify objects with the taxonomy and gram

mar of a certai n language . Pau l Feyerabend argues not
o n ly t h at the l a nguages of the different sciences, a n d
t h o s e o f d i fferent e p o c h s o f t h e same science, a r e i n
com m e n s u ra b l e , u ntra n s l atabl e i nto o n e another, b u t

T H E E L E M E N T A L T H AT F A C E S

also that t h e perceptions of the m e n of t h e M i d d l e

Ages, I n d ia, a n d t h e Amazon rai n forest are i ncom
m e n s u ra b l e . Thomas Ku h n says that every n ew scien
tific revol u t i o n i s not a n ew conceptual grid with
w h i c h to v i ew the same layout of n at u re a n d of t h e
heave n s ; it i s a Gestalt s h i ft i n w h i c h a n e w earth a n d
a n ew heaven beco m e v i s i b l e .
T h e s e i nvestigati o n s move between t h e objective
l a n g u age of the rational com m u n ity and the percep
tion that has t h i n gs as its objective s . The c u r rent phe
n o m e n ology of percept i o n takes it t h at when we l oo k ,
o u r gaze i s always, as H e i degger sai d , i nterested a n d
preoccu p i ed ; w e a r e o n t h e lookout for somet h i n g
some objective, too l , trap, o r obstacl e . The p h i loso
phy of l a n g u age takes it that o u r natu ral , p re-sci entific
l a n g u age fu nctio n s to i d entify objects, i nstr u m e nts,
paths, d i rect i o n s , o r p roced u re s , for one another. It
envisions o n ly that e ntry i nto com m u n ication that i n
tegrates t h e range o f those t h i n gs o u r own sense o r
gans can reac h , i nto t h e world of objects i dentifiable
by a l l .
B u t if it i s true that w e do n ot l ive a n d act i n t h e
objective rep resentati o n of t h e u n iverse b u t i n a per
ceived landscape fo r w h i c h the objective representa
tion of the u n iverse i s a map, t h i s perceived landscape
i s n ot si m p ly a m u ltipl i city of d i screte t h i ngs d i stri b
uted at eye's reach . The t h ings we can d isti ng u i s h a n d
i d e ntify i n p e rception are themselves l a i d out i n a
clear i n g fu l l of l ight, i n a region of warmth a n d an at-

Mt-

..

ALPHO N SO L I N G I S

mosphere i n w h i c h we can move a n d therefore ex

p lore percept u a l ly, a n d over a g ro u n d that does n ot
exten d as another o bj ect b u t as a d i m en s i o n of s u p
port. These n o n th i n gs i n w h i c h t h i n gs form are what
E m m a n u e l Levi nas has thematized as the elemental.
The p h e n o m en o logy of perceptio n req u i res a phe
n o m enology of s e n s i b i l i ty-not a n u nd e rsta n d i n g of
the

p hysiological

o rgans

and

psyc h o p hysiologica l

c h a n n e l s w h i c h capt u re sensatio n s , i nformation-bits,

b u t a recognition of the sensuous e l e m e nt s e n s i b i l ity
k n ows a n d i n w h i c h p e rception esta b l i shes some d i
rections a n d posit i o n s some t h i n g s .
W e do n o t relate t o t h e l ight, the e a rt h , the air, a n d
the warmth o n ly with o u r i nd i v i d u a l sensi b i l ity a n d
sensual ity. W e com m u n icate t o o n e a n other t h e l ight
our eyes k n ow, the g ro u n d that sustai ns our postu res,
a n d t h e a i r a n d the warmth with w h i c h we speak. We
face o n e another as condensatio n s of eart h , l i ght, air,
a n d warmth a n d orient o n e a nother i n t h e e l e m e ntal
in a p r i mary com m u n icatio n . We appeal to the others
to h e l p us be at h o m e i n t h e a l i e n e l e ments i nto w h i c h
w e stray :

in

the d rift i n g a n d

n a me l ess

light a n d

warmth of i n fa n cy, i n t h e n octu rnal depths of t h e

e rotic , a n d i n t h e d o m a i n of dyin g where rational d is
cou rse has n o longer anyt h i n g to say. The p h i losophy
of l a n g u age which dete r m i n es how t h i ngs perceived
are said and how the sayi n g com m u n i cates, req u i re s a
p h e n o m en ology of t h e sayi n g that occu rs when the

T H E E L E M E N T A L T H AT F A C E S

o n e faces the othe r with t h e l ight a n d warmth a n d car

nal su bstan ce of h i s or her face.
The Pythagorean world of n u m be rs, the Plato n i c
world o f fo rms, a n d the m odern scientific u n iverse of
for m u las are l a i d o ut l i ke maps over the i mp l e m e nts
a n d obstacles stationed a l o n g t h e roads of t h e city a n d
t h e h a l l s of t h e construct i o n s of c u l t u re , a n d over t h e
landscape of th i ngs a t rest, a n i mals rov i n g , p lants p ro
l i fe rat i n g , a n d m i n e rals s h i ft i n g i n t h e contou rs bf t h e
eart h . B u t the space where t h e t h i ngs are encou ntered
is not suspended in the n etwork of geometric d i m e n
s i o n s o r i n t h e voi d . It exten d s i n t h e l i ght, i n the
warmth , in t h e atmosphere , and in a cleari n g stabi
l ized on the s u p po rti n g e l e m e n t of eart h . Light i s not,
l i ke a t h i n g , explora b l e from d i fferent angles a n d per
spective s ; i t offers no sides, and i t i s n ot approached
l i ke we approach the su rfaces i t i l l u m i n ates. We f i n d
o u rselves i n the l i ght. It i s n o t a su bstance, su pport i n g
a n d k n own through i t s properties; it i s l u m i nosity, n ot
a property of any t h i n g , a free-float i n g adjective.
Warmth i s n ot someth i n g we perceive from a d i stance
and appre h en d ; we f i n d i t by i m m e rs i o n . G r o u n d i s
not, save for astron auts a n d for t h e i m agi n ation of as
tro n om e rs , the p l a n et, that i s , a spheri ca l s u bstance
that can b e viewed from t h e d i stance once one no
longer feels its su p port. For u s earth l i ngs, t h e gro u n d
i s p u re depth of su pport,

su pported b y n ot h i n g ,

MtfM

ALPHO N SO L I N G I S

w h i c h s u p po rts a l l t h i ngs i n t h e i r p l aces. We k now it

from with i n , in the stabi l ity of our own axis of pos
tu re . The n ight i s n ot a b l ac k su rface that stops o u r
s i g h t o n t h e s u rfaces o f o u r own retinas; o u r look
goes o u t i nto the n i ght, w h i c h i s vast; the n i ght i n
vades, it is with i n as well as without. The e l e m e ntal
does not exte n d , l i ke a landscape of t h i n gs , in hori
zons w h i c h s h ow perception the d i stant a n d the fu
tu re; its presence i s fu l l , there by i ncessant o n co m i n g
a n d without a futu re w e apprehend o r project, i n gra
tu ito u s a b u n dance. The e l e m ental is i m m em o r i a l ; the
vi b ra n cy of t h e l ight about us d i ssolves a l l traces of its
own past forms, a n d the su pporti ng s u stenance of the
g ro u n d i s felt p resent with i n the sta b i l ity a n d agil ity of
our postu re w h i c h does n ot reta i n resid ues of past
s u p po rt.
T h i n gs are fou n d in t h e e l e m e ntal . S ubstances that
have contou rs t h at contai n t h e i r properties, they can
be appre h e n d e d , detached, possesse d . O ne identifies
o neself a n d m a i nta i n s o ne's own i d entity in t h e m idst
of t h i n g s . The e l e mental w h i c h exten d s no h o rizons
of objectives, w h i c h passes i nto n o stock that can be
reca l l e d , does n ot l e n d itself to appropriation . O ne
can n ot m a k e o neself somet h i n g separate a n d consoli
date o neself by appropriati n g t h e l ight, by making pri
vate p roperty a n d d e p rivi n g othe rs of the atmosphere,
by m o n o p o l i z i n g the warm t h , by expropriati n g the
t h i n gs d istributed over t h e g ro u n d of their s u p port.
The f i g h t that i n vades the eyes depersonalizes and the

T H E E L E M E N T A L T H AT F A C E S

anonymity of l ight i l l u m i n ates i n one's eye s ; o n e sees

as eyes of fl esh see. The forest m u rm u rs and the rum
b l e of t h e city i nvade one's ears that hear as h eari n g
hears. T h e gro u n d that rises u p i nto o n e ' s postu re d e
personalizes; o n e stan d s as trees sta n d , o n e wal ks as
terrestrial l i fe wal ks, a n d o n e rests as terrestrial l i fe
rests, a n d as rocks a n d sands rest.
The e l e m e ntal is not a m u lti p l i city of d i sc rete t h i ngs
successively p e rceived in their p l aces from vantage
poi nts and col late d ; it is n ot sensed by a perception
w h i c h i d e ntifies s u rface patterns. The e l e m ental is
sensed in a p u re sense of depth, not by an i ntentional
d i rection of t h e viewi n g eye a n d t h e gras p i n g hand
ai m i n g at objective s , b u t by a movement of i nvol u
tio n . The m ovement t h at sen ses the e l e me n ta l i s not
the movement of n eed or want, the movement of an
e m pti ness that seeks, in the d i stance, a content; it is
a movem e n t of i mm ersi o n in a p le n u m . The sense of
the e l e mental senses itself affected wit h , fi l led with,
a n d n o u ri s h ed by the e l e m ental i n a s e n s u o u s accord
which

the

word

enjoyment designates.

The

l ight

bathes t h e eyes as soon as they open a n d b u oys up

t h e movement of s ight toward t h e su rfaces a n d con
tou rs of t h i n gs it i l l u m i n ates. It d oes n ot spread a
scre e n of col o r before t h e sight; its own col o r d i s
solves to leave the colors of t h e t h i n gs it i l l u m i nates
glow with t h e i r own p h o s p horescence. But it is not
n eutral or p u re transpare n cy; the e njoyment in see i n g
senses t h e h u e a n d t h e sparkle a n d v i b ra n cy of t h e

ALPHONSO LINGIS

l ight. The eyes t h at see with the l i g h t e njoy seei n g ;

t h e vita l i ty caressed a n d s u stai ned b y t h e warmth of
the day enjoys b e i n g warme d ; the gait s u stained by
the g ro u n d e njoys wal k i n g and enjoys wan d e r i n g a i m
lessly i n t h e s u stai n i ng reg i o n o f t h e terrestrial . The
l u n gs that b reathe in the air e njoy savori n g the good
ai r. The ears d o not o n ly harken to the signals a n d the
th reats ; t h ey e njoy heari n g the forest m u rm u rs a n d
t h e r u m b l e of t h e city. The h o m e i s n ot o n ly a closed
vau l t f u l l of i m p l ements and stocked to satisfy n e e d s ;
it i s a zone of tran q u i l ity a n d warmth a n d a prec i n ct
of i nti macy recessed from t h e u nc h a rted expanses of
the a l i e n , reco g n ized in e njoyme n t . A n d we enjoy e n
joyi n g o u r h o m e s .
W e do n o t l ive by labor a l o n e o r by b read a l o n e .
Life i s n ot a s u ccession of i nitiatives d riven by n e ed
a n d want a n d ai m i ng at o bjectives . Life is not t h e re
cu rrence of n eed a n d sati sfaction , eat i n g and gett i n g
h u n g ry agai n a n d d r i n k i n g a n d gett i n g t h i rsty agai n , i n
a n e nterprise t h at i s grad u a l l y l o s i n g i t s reserve, i n an
anxiety repeatedly postp o n i n g 'death . Life i s enjoy
m e n t . We l ive i_n l ight, i n warmth , in l iq u i d ity, in radi
ance, i n t h e ru m b l e o f s o no rity a n d t h e m u s i c o f t h e
spheres, i n t h e i n t i m acy o f h o m e a n d h o m e l a n d a n d
i n the i mm e nsities of t h e exoti c .
The s e n s u o u s i nvol ution i n t h e e le m ental makes
one's eyes l u mi n o u s , one's hands warm , one's pos
tu re su p po rtive, o n e ' s voice vol u b l e and s p i ritual a n d
one's face a r d e n t . I n the i nvolution o f enjoyment i s

T H E E L E M E N T A L TH A T F A C E S

generated the gratu ito u s a n d excess e n e rgies that

seek release i n exultatio n . Enjoyment is freed o m ; i n
the e njoyme n t o f t h e rad i a n ce o f the s p r i n g day a n d
t h e warmth of t h e g ro u n d , w e forget o u r cares, o u r
crav i n g s , a n d o u r objectives; w e forget o u r losses a n d
o u r compen satio n s a n d w e l e t go of what holds u s .
Every enjoyment i s a d eat h : a dyi n g w e k n ow, n ot a s
the H e i d egge rian a n x i ety k n ows it-b e i n g h u rl ed from
b e i n g i nto n oth i ngness-an d n ot as pai n k n ows it-a
b e i n g m i red i n o neself a n d backed up i nto o neself by
the passage i nto passivity-but as d i ssolution i nto t h e
beg i n n i n gless, e n d less,

a n d fatho m less p l e n u m of

the e l e m e ntal .
I t i s before t h e face o f another that o u r enjoyment
beco m es our own . Our own to give.
To see t h e other as another sentient agent is to see
his postu res a n d move m ents d i rected to a range of
i m pl e m e n ts a n d obstacles about h i m . To see t h e other
i s to see h e r p lace as a p l ace I cou l d occ u py a n d the
t h i n gs about h e r as harbori n g poss i b i l ities that are
open to my s k i l l s a n d i n itiatives . It i s to see the other
as a nother one l i ke I am, e q u ivalent to a n d i n te r
changeable with m e .

It is the sense of t h e death

awaiti n g me t h at c i rc u m scribes the ran ge of poss i b i l i

t i e s a head of m e . T o s e e t h e other as o n e w h o h a s h i s
own tasks a n d potential ities i s t o sense a nother death
ci rcu m scri b i n g the field of poss i b i l ities a head of h i m .

M.iM

ALPHONSO LINGIS

But t h e othe r tu rns to m e , e mpty-handed, from

across that wal l of death . S h e appeals to t h e s k i l l s a n d
resou rces o f my h a n d s . H e idegger calls i n authentic,
i nauthentifyi n g , the sol icitude with which I su bstitute
my s k i l l s for h i s and take over his tasks for h i m . What
the other asks i s not for t h i s d i s b u rd e n i ng, t h i s d i s
p l acement from h e r own tasks. S h e asks of my hands
t h e d i agram of t h e o p e rations h e r h an d s see k to per
for m , and he asks the assi stance of m y forces, l est h i s
be want i n g . B u t h e o r s h e appeals fi rst for terrestrial
su pport, the s u p po rt t h at my stan d on the earth has
to give. Rob i n s o n C rusoe, in M i c h e l Tou r n i e r's novel
Friday, writes, " I k n ow now that t h e very earth be
n eath m y feet needs to be trodden by feet other than
m i n e if I a m to be s u re of its su bstance . " Peter Ma
t h i essen asks that m e n of the H i ma l ayas g ro u n d h i m
o n t h i s m o u nta i n where h e h as com e t o stu dy t h e
s n ow leopard ; G e rtrud Tru n asks o f t h e p e o p l e o f the
Laca n d o n e rai n forest that t h ey g ro u nd h e r in C h iapas
where she has come to photograph the butterfl ies a n d
t h e o rc h i d s o f the forests ; George Abramson asks of
t h e m e n of Africa that they g ro u n d h i m i n the savan
n a h where he h as come to return t h e l i o n s to l ib e rty;
C h e G uevara asks of the m e n of the Bol ivian Andes
t h at t h ey gro u n d h i m in t h e rai n forests where h e has
come to com bat the d i ctator. The fat i g u e , the vertigo,
and t h e h o m el essness in his o r h e r body appeals for
the force of terrestrial su pport from those whose
eart h b o u n d bodi es have t h e sense of this earth and

T H E E L E M E N TAL T H AT F A C E S

t h i s terrai n to give. The other turns to t h e terrestrial

s u p port in my sta n d ; if, w h i l e exte n d i n g m y s k i l l s to
h e r tasks, I do not offer this s u p port to h e r, s h e wi l l
prefer t o wor k o u t t h e ways a n d t h e operati o n s on h e r
own , b y t r i a l a n d erro r .
The h a n d of t h e other extended to m i n e s e e k s not
o n ly the s k i l l s in my h a n d , w h i c h is an i n stru ment
among others ava i l a b l e for his o r h e r own tasks; i n
t h e clasped handshake with w h i c h w e greet o n e a n
other a n d s e t out e a c h to h i s o r h e r o w n tasks, each
one seeks the warmth of the hand of another-th e el
e menta l warmth in w h i c h vital ity i s i m m e rsed .
The other, whom I see as a foc u s of v i s i o n open to
t h e su rfaces a n d contou rs of t h e landscape open to
m e too-a d ifferent vision that su rveys t h e ran ge of a
land scape of poss i b i l ities whose rel i ef t h e b lack wal l
o f h i s o r h e r own death ci rc u m scribes about h i m o r
h e r-looks at m e with t h e n aked ness a n d v u l ne ra b i l ity
of h i s or h e r eyes. H i s or h e r look appeal s to the vi
sion in my eyes. But n ot o n ly for t h e foresight and
h i ndsight that can chart his or her way fo r h i m o r h e r :
h e o r s h e appeals fi rst fo r l ight. I n solitude, Robinson
Crusoe l earns the frighte n i n g n aked n ess of h i s eyes .
H e real izes t h at t h e eyes of othe rs had exten ded be
yond the narrow radi u s of t h i ngs he sees, fields of
t h i n gs a l ready seen or b e i n g seen by u s ; a l i e n eyes
extend the m a p of the v i s i b l e . H i s sol itude means that
these other l ig h ts are gone a n d black n ig ht n arrows
t h e visible to what he h i mself actually sees. H i s eyes

.,.

ALPHONSO LINGIS

cease to fu n ction as a l ight sou rce that c i rc u l ates

a m o n g objects that were vi s i b l e before he came u pon
them a n d rem a i n vis i b l e o n t h e m a rg i n of what h e
n ow sees. The colors a n d the s h adows i n vade h i s
eyes, l i ke o pacities i n h eri n g i n t h e m w h i c h t h e eye
can no l o n ge r situate outsid e . H i s sight becom es a
tube where a frag m e n t of the vi s i b l e abru ptly b l azes,
l i ke a b low struck without warn i n g . When othe r eyes
were there , t h ey kept the l ight l u m i n o u s beyond t h e
narrow radi u s o f what i s actually v i s i b l e t o h i m .
When someone's eyes tu rn t o m e , it i s other l i ght
sou rces t h ey seek, g l owi n g i n t h e light, to extend the
depth of l ight in which h e o r she c i rcu late s . Some
t i m es , to be s u re , t h e other looks to m e to receive
from me the i mage of w h at my eyes h ave see n ; the
other I meet on t h e H i ma l ayan trek asks of m e if I
have seen the path to t h e grand visions that eyes are
m ad e to see. B ut t h e other's look d oes not look to
m y eyes to see there the su rfaces and conto u rs of the
landscape u po n w h i c h I hold my l oo k . It fi rst seeks
t h e vivacity a n d rad iance of t h e l i gh t in my eyes, a n d
it s e e k s t h e s h adows a n d the d a r k n ess my eyes harbor
with care. If it does n ot fin d them , if it fi n d s o n ly the
look of a s u rveyor record i n g the topography, it w i l l
prefer t o l o o k o n i t s own for t h e rad iance a n d t h e twi
l ights of t h e wo rld .
The other tu rns to me a n d speaks ; he or s h e asks
someth i n g of me. Her words , which I u nd e rstand be
cause t h ey are t h e words of my own ton g u e , ask for

T H E E L E M E N T A L T H AT F A C E S

i nfo rmat i o n a n d i n d icati o n s . They ask for a response

that wi l l b e respo n s i b l e , wi l l give reasons for its rea
sons a n d wi l l be a c o m m itment to a n swer for what it
a n swe rs . But t h ey first greet me with a n appeal for
respon siveness. H i s words see k out a voice vol u b l e
a n d s p i ritu a l , whose o rders, coherence, a n d d i rection
are i n te rrupte d , of itself, by hesitatio n s , red u ndan
cies, a n d s i l e n ces, q u e sti o n i n g h i m by q uesti o n i n g it
self. I n the very explanation a n d i n struction the other
seeks, h e o r s h e seeks his o r h e r own voice in my
s i l e n ces a n d my q uestio n s . If my voice is n ot respon
sive to th is quest, h e o r she will seek in books the
answers to his o r her perplexities.
The face of t h e other i s a s u rface upon which the
axes a n d d i rectio n s of his postu re a n d the i ntentions
of his move me n ts are exposed to me. The face of the
oth e r i s a su rface u po n w h i c h the forms of h e r com
p re h e n s i o n are expressed to me. The face of t h e other
is a s u rface of suffe r i n g , u po n which her sensitivity
a n d suscepti b i l ity a n d h e r v u l n e ra b i l ity a n d m o rtality
are exposed to m e . T h i s su rface is made of l ight a n d
shadows, o f carbon com po u n ds , earth ; h i s eyes glis
ten a n d move with t h e l i q u i d ity of the e l e m ental ; her
voice i s made of air a n d warmt h . The face of t h e oth e r
i s a su rface o f t h e e l e m e ntal-the p lace where t h e e l e
m ental addresses, appeals a n d req u i re s , t h e i nvol u
t i o n i n e njoyment w h i c h makes o n e ' s own eyes l u m i
n o u s , one's hands warm , one's postu re s u p portive,

ALPHONSO LI N G I S

one's voice vol u b l e a n d spi ritua l , a n d one's face ar

dent. The face of the other i s the place where the e l e
m ental s u rfaces to make demands o n t h e e l e m ental
resou rces in w h i c h the e njoyment o f my l ife i s i m
m e rsed .
What the face of the other asks fo r is n ot the i na u
thentic a n d i nauthentifyi n g so l i citude w i t h which I
su bstitute my s ki l ls for h i s , take over h e r tasks fo r her,
vi ew the forms a n d t h e l a n d scape fo r him, for m u late
the a n swers to the q u estio n s in h e r stead . H e does
not seek his o r her conten t m e nt i n t h e content that
w i l l satisfy h i s needs a n d wants, w h i c h I can su pply
fro m my p lace a n d m y resou rces and with my s k i l l s
the contentment w h i c h , when h e has been d isplaced
by me a n d d i s b u rdened of h i s own tasks, wi l l leave
h i m o n ly the weight a n d death of the i n o rgan i c . I n
seek i n g t h e s u p po rt o f m y u pright stan d o n the eart h ,
t h e agi l e l u m i n o usness t h at s h i nes i n my eyes, the
warmth in my hands, t h e ardor in m y face, a n d t h e
spi ritual ity i n my b reath , t h e othe r s e e k s the pleas u re
that is enjoyment i n , i nvolution a n d t h e dyi n g i n , t h e
e l e m ental . The other s e e k s t h e contact a n d the ac
com p a n i ment.

 very

d i scou rse a m o n g i n te rlocuto rs is a struggle

aga i n st outsiders , those w h o e m it i nterference and

equ ivocation , who have an i nterest in that t h e com
m u n ication n ot take p l ac e . But in t h e m eas u re t h at
com m u n icati o n does take p lace a n d that statem ents
are esta b l i shed as true, it d e s i gnates o utsiders as not
m a k i n g sense, as mystified, mad, o r b ruti s h , a n d it de
l ivers them over to v i o l e n ce .
What can b e true i s a statem e n t th at can be i nte
grated i nto the c o m m o n d i sc o u rse. Statem e n ts can be
tru e , and m e a n i n gfu l , o n l y in the d i scou rse of an es
tab l i shed

com m u n ity

that

dete r m i n es

what

cou l d

c o u n t a s o bservat i o n s , w h at d egrees o f accu racy i n re

cord i n g observations are possi b l e , h ow the words of
com mo n language are restricted and refi n ed for d i f
ferent k i n d s of cogn ition a n d for practical or tech no
logical u se s , a n d w h at cou l d cou nt as an argument.
Truth req u i res a com m u n i ty with i nstitutio n s that set
up and f u n d exploration , research , and laboratories
to gather i nformation and o bservations accord i n g to
com m u n ity standard s of accu racy and repeata b i l ity ;

ALPHONSO LINGIS

i nstitutions that dete r m i n e t h e gra m m atical a n d r h e

torical for m s i n w h i c h theoretical o r tech n o logical re
search is to be reported , a n d its con c l u s i o n s fo r m u
lated ; a n d i n stitutions that esta b l i s h what cou nts as
a rg u m e nt a n d w h at c o u nts as evid ence i n logic, p hys
ics, h i story, l ite rary c riticism or B i b l i ca l scholars h i p ,
eco n o m ics,

penology,

strategy. Truth

j u risprudence,

and

m i l itary

req u i res i nstitutions that select re

search ers, teach them t h e paradi g m s of successful re

searc h ,

and

trai n

them

to

repeat

and

apply that

research to batches of other material selected by i nsti

tutional crite r i a ; it req u i res i nstitutions that certify a n d
eva l u ate t h e i r researc h e rs a n d tec h n i c i a n s . It req u i res
i n stitutio n s t h at sel ect what research is to be p u b
l ished a n d how it is to be j ud ged . A l l these i n stitutions
recru it and trai n thei r m e m bers a n d are f u n ded and
contro l l ed by i n stitu t i o n s that reg u l ate t h e com ma n d
posts by w h i c h the esta b l i shed com m u n ity m o nopo
l izes a n d elaborates its power.
Aristotle has d e l e gated to us the n ot i o n that truth i s
a p roperty o f j ud g m ents, a c haracte ristic-of adeq u a
tion-that i n h eres i n a statement as its own property.
But the dete r m i nation of truth is not at a l l the wo rk
of a sol itary th i n ke r who s i m p l y i nspects the i ntri n s i c
properti es o f statem ents taken o n e b y o n e . Every truth
i s an esta b l i s h ed truth , the truth of a certa i n i nstitu
t i o n or i n stitutional complex.
And

every i nstitution

i n stitutes o r establ i s h es a

truth . Whe n eve r a com m u n ity is fou n d ed a n d when-

C A R R I O N B O D Y C A R R I O N U TT E R A N C E

ever t h e constitutio n a n d laws a n d b o u ndaries a n d

corn ma n d posts of a state are fou nd e d , t h e t r u t h for
that comm u n ity is i nstitute d .
A d i scou rse esta b l i shed as t r u e fu nctions both i ndic
atively, as i nformati o n a n d advance representatio n of
t h i n gs a n d s it u atio n s , and vocatively a n d i mperatively,
as an utterance cal l i ng u pon and s u m m o n i n g before it
the p resence of i nd i v i d u a l s . I t s u m m o n s them bodily.
True d i scou rse
bodily sensatio n s ;

i s d i scou rse w h i c h

i s based on

it records w h at i n d ividuals h ave

seen a n d heard, what t h e i r body powers can vouch

for . B u t t h e s e n s i b l e n ess, t h e sanity, of d i scou rse in
the com m u n ity i s i nd e pendent of t h e bod ies of i n d i
vid u a l s ; o n e verifies t h e con s i stency a n d coherence,
t h e rational ity, a n d t h e verifi a b i l ity of t h at d i scourse
without con s i d e r i n g the body's health o r san ity, at a l l .
T h e a b i l ity t o i n tegrate statem ents about what o n e has
seen a n d heard i nto t h e body of establ i s h ed truth is
governed n ot by b io logical o r psyc h o p hysiological ,
b u t by rat i o n a l , logica l , a n d scientific laws : that i s , i n
stitutional crite r i a .
The i nd i v i d u a l w h o i s s ubjected to the i n stitutional
i mp e rative to say what h e sees a n d experiences m ust
say i t in statements su bjected to the contestation and
verification of others of the com m u n ity. H e m u st for
m u late h i s l iv i n g i ns i ghts and experien ces in the estab
l i shed concepts of the l a n g uage-i n forms that are not
his own , but are the forms of anyo n e . His most i nti-

MM

ALPHO N SO L I N G I S

mate a n d l iving i m p u lses a n d i ns i g hts lose t h e i r i n d i

v i d u a l ity i n b e i n g form u late d ; h i s t h o u ghts a r e p u t i n
t h e coffers o f words that preserve t h e m l i ke tom bs
p reserve, s u c h that late r, when he h ears or reads h i s
own t h o u ghts, h e fi n d s i n t h e wo rds o n ly what anyo n e
else fi n d s ; h e n o longer fi n d s the lithe a n d v i rg i n fi res
of h i s own i n n e r l ife . When he speaks, he speaks as
o n e in whose statement the logic, theories, and cog n i
tive m ethods o f h i s c u l t u re a r e i mp l icate d ; h e speaks
as a rep resentative, equ iva l e n t a n d i nterchangeable
with a n other, of t h e esta b l i s h ed truth . Al l the e p h e m
e r a l i n s ights of h i s sentient b o d y a r e conti n ue d , m a i n
tai he d , o r lost i n the anonym o u s body o f d i scou rse of
t h e i n stituted science a n d c u l t u re .
I n savage societies, l a n g u age a s utterance separates
from and p reva i l s over l a n g u age as statement of i nfor
m ation esta b l i s he d as truth . What Montaigne i d enti
fied as t h e word of honor separates from t h e i n fo rm a
tive word .1 The savage i s an exposed body, resol ute
a n d p ro u d i n the force with w h i c h h e advances naked
i nto t h e rai n forests a n d the sava n n a h . The bodies of
others a re viewed d i rectly i n their strength and speed,
sensitivity a n d c l a i rvoyance, a n d audacity a n d e n d u r
a nce-i ndividual attri b u tes w h i c h are not observed
and recorded in i n evitably c o m m o n categori es, but
expe r i enced and tested in contention with t h e m . The
1 . Montaigne, "On Cann i bals."

C A R R I O N B O D Y CA R R I O N U T T E RA N C E

savage advances u nto the bodies of others, warrio rs

proudly arrayed with t h e p l u m e s of eagles a n d t h e
tusks of w i l d boars, to wage a contest o f c o u rage a n d
h o n o r w i t h them . The i r bodies are n o t armed t o de
fend an esta b l i shed i n stituti o n ; thei r outcries do n ot
proc l a i m an esta b l i shed truth . T h e i r s ho u ts add ressed
i n d ivid u al ly to warri o rs are p e rformative words with
which the savage c o m m its h i mself, words add ressed
to the arms and the d eadly force of the other, words
in which h e stan d s and stakes h i s l ife . As he t r i u m p h s
o r fal l s , h e i ntones a c r y of g l o ry, t h e cry of eagles o r
l i o n s , o r utters a last cry o f i n s u bm ission a n d defiance.
An esta b l i shed d iscou rse s u m mo n s the i n d ividuals
it i nforms, d i recti n g t h e m to t h e t h i ngs and situatio n s
it for m u l ates. B u t an esta b l i s h ed d i scou rse can also
exc l u d e t h e i n d ivid uals it su m m o n s from t h e th ings
a n d situations it dete r m i n es .
The p h i loso p h e r i s o n e who speaks i n t h e m id st of
an establ i s hed cu ltu re , b u t fi n d s that t h e body of
statem ents estab l i shed in that c u lt u re wea k e n or d i s i n
tegrate u nd e r t h e effect o f skeptical d o u bt . I n a tacti
cal a l l iance with s keptics, h e fi n d s h i s vocat i o n and h i s
d i g n ity i n separat i n g h im se l f from t h e body o f state
m ents, n ot by m a k i n g n ew observations to be ac
cou nted fo r alongside t h e establ ished o n e s , b u t by re
veal i n g

i nconsistencies

and

i ncoherence s

in

the

establ i s h ed c a n o n s w h i c h determ i n e w h at can count

as observations, w h at l evels of accu racy in dete rm i n-

ALPHONSO LINGIS

i n g observat i o n s are poss i b l e , i n what terms a n d i n

what k i n d s o f fo r m u lation t h e o bservations are t o be
reported , a n d what can count as argu ment i n the di
verse cognitive d i sc i p l i nes a n d p ractical sphere s . The
esta b l ished discou rse ceases to fu n ction , fo r t h e p h i
losopher, as a dete r m i n ation of t h i n gs a n d situatio n s
i n w h i c h h e l ives h i s l ife a n d n ow fu nctions a s an ut
terance, cal l i n g upon and req u i r i n g the p h i loso p h e r i n
perso n . The p h i losopher works not to d isestabl i s h t h e
truth , b u t to establ i s h t h e t r u t h m o re securely.
The psyc hotic , the pari a h , and the mystic fi n d t h e m
selves not i nformed by t h e esta b l i shed d iscou rse, n ot
d i rected to the t h i n gs a n d situatio n s it for m u lates , a n d
n o t s u m m oned t o contri b ute t o its establ i s h ment. T h i s
cou l d b e n owise a p ro b l e m a b o u t the esta b l i shed d i s
cou rse f u n cti o n i n g as statem e nts ; it c o u l d wel l be t h at
o n e co u l d fi n d o n eself excl uded by t h e body of state
m ents whose veracity is nowise i n q uestio n , state
m ents whose veracity o n e h as no d o u bts about. State
ments t h at are fi r m , establ is h e d , a n d acknowledged as
rel ia b l e and verid i ca l , add ress to these i n d ividuals b u t
o n e utterance, "You are i ncapable o f truth ! " The pa
r i a h , the mysti c , and the psychotic k n ow this utter
a n ce in the suffer i n g a n d torment of t h e i r bodi e s .
What i s d e s i g n ated as a m i nd i n deco m position i n a
b rutish body is n ot s i m ply an e ntity exc l u d e d from t h e
objects that t h e esta b l i s h ed b o d y of statem ents i d e n t i
fie s a n d recognizes; it i s tortured by t h e i n stitu ti o n s
that estab l ish t h e truth .

C A R R I O N B O D Y C A R R I O N U TT E R A N C E

When the violence called u p by an aggressive b l ow

is n ot d i sc harged i n a cou nter- b l ow, its forces are ac
c u m u l ated and exaspe rated i n the t i m e t h at e l apses
before it fi n d s its revenge. A gro u p may wreack ex
tre m e violence u po n someone agai n st whom it has
long been acc u m u lati n g s u s p i c i o n s a n d g ri evances.
But it i s d o u btfu l that tort u re , when it enters i nto the
p ractices of i nstitutions, does so as a resu lt of the con
fl u ence of a n u m be r of violent a n d v i n d i ctive i n d ivid u
a l s . Wou l d n ot t h e solitary m o n ster b e produ ce d , n ot
by an atavist regressi o n to t h e i n sti ncts of beasts of
prey, b u t by a condensation i n h i m of t h e m ethods of
violence elaborated i n i nstitut i o n s ? It seem s clear that
confirmed rapi sts act not out of t h e raw sex d rive
stripped of social contro l , but out of the c o ntraction
in them of the i nstitutional i magoes and p ractices of
the

m i l le n n ia l

patri a rc h ical

society.

The

one

that

gouges out the eyes of h i s victim h as not regressed to

the p resocia l ized i nsti ncts of apes but has ascended
to the ran ks of the Ottom a n J an issaries and the agents
of the Roman I n q u isiti o n . To e m e rge and be m a i n
tai n e d , to rture p resu pposes n o t certa i n i n st i n cts b u t
ce rtai n i nstitut i o n s .
It i s as fanatics, s u bversives, savages, a n d i nsane
i n d ividuals whose basic antisocial act consists i n not
m a k i n g sense-that offe nd e rs are not s i m p l y coerced
i nto o b e d i e n ce or restitution , but a re tortu red . Tor
t u re i s i n stituted w h e re there i s a tota l itarian power,
but also a certain k i n d of establ ished d iscou rse.

@@

ALPHONSO

LI NG I S

M i c h e l Foucault has s h own h ow the practice of tor

t u re i n stituted in the a n c i e n regi m e in Eu rope e n s u ed
from t h e contact of t h e body of the offen d e r with t h e
establ i s h ed truth i n carnated i n the d o u b l y transcen
d en ta l i zed body of t h e m o n a rc h . 2 The body of t h e
m o n a rc h d i d n o t s i m ply symb o l ize t h e social order
b u t material ized the body of the State, a n d was in
vested with power by d i v i n e right as an i n carnation of
the resu rrected body of C h ri st t h e K i n g who i s t h e
Way a n d t h e Truth a n d t h e Life . Every cri m e that occu
pied royal j u stice was a crime of lese-majeste. Many
socia l offenses were not covered by t h e k i n g's j u stice
at a l l-econ o m ic cri m es which were penal ized by the
g u i l d s and by t h e town offi cial s , aggressions a n d m u r
d e rs w h i c h were aven ged by the comm u n ity or t h e
fam i ly who suffered the aggressi o n , a n d tran sgres
s i o n s of canon law w h i c h were pena l ized by the eccle
siastical cou rts. When t h e agents of t h e king rod e i nto
a town to seek out a cri m i n a l and b ri n g h i m to j ustice,
h e was treated as o n e who had offended the very p e r
son of t h e k i n g-more exactly, assau lted the body of
the k i n g . T h e body of t h e k i n g was t h e su bstance t h at
m aterial ized t h e coherence and con s i stency of t h e
truth esta b l i s h ed i n t h e h eaven s a n d i n stituted i n t h e
structu re of the State. This absol utization of t h e body
of t h e m o n a rc h made i n te l l i g i b l e the su bject i n g of the
2 . Michel Foucault, Discipline a n d Punish, trans. Alan Sheridan
(New York : Vintage. 1 979); Ernst Kantorowicz, The King 's Two Bod
ies (Pri nceton : Princeton U n i versity Press, 1 957) .

C A R R I O N B O D Y C A R R I O N U TT E R A N C E

enemy of t h e k i n g to aggression without l i m it : p o u r

i n g boi l i n g o i l down h i s th roat, gouging out h i s eyes,
bra n d i n g and q uarte r i n g h i s body, and b u r n i n g it at
the stake. The stake p i led with faggots was set u p i n
the p u b l i c square, a n d a l l t h e k i n g's su bjects were
s u m m o n ed to attend t h i s theater w h e re t h e cri m i na l
was suspended between the h eavens a n d the flames
of hell a l ready ri s i n g up to c o n s u m e h i m . The tortured
body of the k i n g's e ne m y was made i nto the s u b
stance u po n w h i c h t h e sacred ness of the sove reign
body of t h e king was e m bl azoned.
E n l ighte n m ent E u rope was to send to t h e g u i l l ot i n e
the b o d i e s of i t s m onarchs a n d the truth i n carnated i n
the m . Scientifico-tec h n o logical ratio n a l i ty, n ot relative
to any real m or dynasty and exte n d i n g its d o m a i n over
all reg i o n a l d i scou rses that i nvoke sacred or a ncestral
authority whose seriou s n ess a n d consistency it adj u d i
cates, wi l l be absol utized across the p l a net. Its truths
are estab l i s h ed with tech n ologica l , pedagogical , eco
n o m i c , a n d pol itical i n stitut i o n s . U n iversities a n d re
search i n stitutes rep resent themselves as the i nstitu
tions

in

which

the

criteria

for

com mo n

truth

is

esta b l i s h e d ; in fact, t h ey s u b m it t h e i r p rojects a n d

cu rri c u l a to parl i a ments for i m p l e mentatio n . Parl ia
ments represent t h emselves as for u m s where the i n
sights of representative i n d ivid uals are freely e labo
rated and i n tegrated with one a nother in provisional
syntheses ;

in fact,

parl i a m e nts f u n ction as board

roo m s where the interests of the most powerfu l i nsti-

ALPHONSO LINGIS

tutions of t h e d i sc i p l i n ary a rc h i pelago are coord i n ated

and tra n scen d ental ized as law. Parl iament repl aces t h e
body o f t h e k i n g as t h e b o d y i n w h i c h the coherence
a n d consistency of every i n stitution-eco n o m i c , m u l
ti n ational-corporate, j u rid ical, i n d u stria l , educati o n a l ,
scientific, a n d religious-is represented, a n d t h e i r i n
tegration i n t h e national a n d a l s o i nternational o rd e r
is elaborate d .
The a l i e n s o n o t h e r cont i nents, encou ntered a s t h e
E u ro pean E n l ighte n ment exten ded i t s scientifico-tech
n ological a n d pol itical i n stitutio n s across the p la n et,
were conceptual ized by Hege l , as by Plato, as barbar
i a n s , a n i m a l s without l a n g u age, l iv i n g , acco rd i n g to
Hege l , i n a tropical a n d torpid hypnogogic state of
reveri e . A n i m a l s with d i fferent bodies, t h ey were i n
sensitive, acco rd i n g t o N i etzsche, t o t h e pai n o f the
m isery a n d whips to w h i c h the rational com m u n ity
su bjects t h e m . But the u l t i m ate and essential term
with which t h ey were designated by the E n l i ghten
ment i s cannibal. The term fixed the most extreme re
p u g na nce with w h i c h the E n l ighten ment cou l d view
savages, those torpid d reamers who h ad no self a n d
n o self-co n sciou sness : t h e i r b o d i e s were, i n fact, n o t
t h e i r own , b u t com posed out of t h e corpses o f others,
carrio n them selves. Can n i ba l i s m was a l l eged every
where t h e E u ropean con q u i stadors went, a n d tortured
and e n s laved : in the Caribbea n ; a m o n g the Aztecs,
the Mayas, the I ncas ; across Africa; and in Polynesia.
On t h e g i bbets of t h e E u ropean abso l u te m o narchy,

C A R R I O N B O D Y C A R R I O N U TT E R A N C E

the bodi es of E u ro peans confessed t h at t h ey had de

l ivered t h emselves over to the Pri n ce of Darkness, and
the to rture e m b l azoned o n them t h e d ivi n e right of
t h e body of the k i n g . In the o uter rea l m s where the
E u ro pean power extended its E n l ighten ment, the tor
t u re of t h e Cari b s , Ameri n d i a n s , Afri cans, Asians, a n d
Polyn e s i a n s forced t h e m to confess to bei n g can n i bals
and

forced

from t h e m

the

utterances

of carrio n

bod i e s .
Today, tortu re i s m o re widespread than ever. Tor
tu re does n ot su bsist o n ly i n a rc h a i c and pariah e n
claves of autocracy, b u t it ravages especially i n t h e cli
ent states 3 of t h e advanced powers that procla i m
al legiance t o t h e esta b l i s h ed scientifico-tech n o logical
rational ity and rep resent t h e m selves as representa
tional d e m ocrac i e s . Tortu re , today, i s no longer con
d u cted in t h e p u b l i c s q u are before t h e w h o l e com m u
n ity, n o r before t h e television cameras, b u t i n secret
d u n geon s by covert-act i o n com mandos in the o uter
provi n ces of the global scientifico-te c h n o l og i ca l e m
p i re , where t h e voices of i t s vict i m s , thei r screams a n d
thei r s o b s , are l o s t i n t h e n i g ht a n d the fog . I t s vict i m s
a r e n o t i d entified as sacri legious regicides b u t a s s u b
versives, fan atics, m a n i acs, a n d terrorists .
The tortu rer works to tear away at t h e vict i m 's body
and prove to h i m that h e i s a terrorist and that what

3 . El Salvador, Peru, Kuwait, Kenya, Angola . . .

MJW

ALPHONSO LINGIS

h e b e l i eved i n i s abe rration a n d d e l u si o n . The i nstru

m ents a n d tec h n i ques of tortu re do have the power
to ren d e r a body i n capable and b ruti s h , by tear i n g
away at i t s i n tegrity a n d p rovi n g it cowardly and cra
ven . The most cou rageous m i l itants make s u re t h ey
carry, at a l l t i m es , vials of cya n i de to bite o pe n . For
to rture i s n ot j u st a contest of wi l l s , between tortu rer
a n d captive ; it i s armed with a tec h n ology that can
red uce the wi l l to i mpotent ferocity in a mass of ob
scen e m e mbers a n d o rg a n s .
The to rtu re r demands o f t h e vict i m that a s h i s body
is b e i n g red uced to a m ass of pai n and gore, h e say
somet h i n g-that he confess . Confess what? Not that
t h e i n stituted reg i m e , pol icy, a n d doctri n e i s tru e . The
esta b l i s h ed body of statem ents, d etermi n ed by t h e es
tabl i sh e d ways t h i ngs and situatio n s are observed, by
the esta b l i shed terms a n d fo r m u l ations with w h i c h
t h ey are reported , a n d by the establ ished ways reports
and possi b i l ities are argued, are true because t h ey d e
term i n e t h i ngs a n d situatio n s a n d not beca u se they
are conti n ua l l y su bstantiated by the i n d iv i d u a l s to
whom t h ey are offered . The i n stitution does n ot con
ceive of t h e o n e being tortu red , o r any i n d ivi d u al sub
ject, as one who m ust contri b ute to its truth , who h as
a part to p l ay i n the constitutio n of truth , a n d who h as
a part to p l ay a l so i n t h e structu re of power, w h i c h
wou l d c o n struct a n d be constructed o u t of the truth
to w h i c h all contri b ute. Were it to conceive of t h e in
d i v i d u a l that way, then that wou l d a m o u nt to conceiv-

C A R R I O N B O D Y CA R R I O N U T T E RA N C E

i n g of itself as n ot yet b e i n g true or bei n g true o n ly

contingent on t h e assent of a m u ltipl i city of k n owi n g
a n d act i n g su bjects. The esta b l i s h ed scientifico-tech
nological truth i s m a n i fested in the planeta ry n at u re it
coerces i nto obed i e n ce and does not, l i ke the monar
c h i ca l order, req u i re t h e theater of t h e g i bbet for its
proclamatio n . I t tortu res in the n ight and fog . If it i s
esta b l i s h ed a s t h e i n stitution of truth a n d j u stice, then
a l l it asks, a n d a l l it can ask, of t h e i ndivi d u al is that
h e confess ; that i s , bear witness to it a n d represent its
truth in h i s body by confess i n g h i mself i ncapable of
truth . The one being tortured i s n ot b e i n g asked to
.
declare true what he k n ows to be false. The to rtu re r
d e m a n d s that h e confess that h e i s i n capable o f mak
ing sense, that his body i s i ncapable of l uc i d ity a n d
d i sce r n m e nt, that it is n ot h i n g b u t corru pti o n a n d p u
trefaction . N o t o n ly t h a t h e d o e s not have a m i n d ca
pable of contri b u t i n g to o r verifyi n g the truth of t h e
i n stituti o n , b u t that h e d o e s not have a b o d y capable
of h o l d i n g together. The utterance the i nstitution de
mands to hear from t h e i n d ividual i s that h e confesses
to b e i n g filth and s h it-that h e i s al ready the carrion
t h e tortu re i s making of h i m .
The o n e that tortures i s n ot a n agent that mai nta i n s
the i nstitution and contributes t o i t s t ru t h ; h e i s o n e
outside of p u b l i c view, o n e w h o works i n t h e d u n
geo n s a n d t h e n ight, w h o k n ows h i mself to be scu m
a n d refu se.
The o n e that h as confessed can t h e n be i nc i n e rate d ,

ALPHONSO LINGIS

havi n g a l ready ackn owl edged that h e i s noth i n g b u t

rott i n g flesh . O r e l s e h e c a n t h e n be u sed b y t h e i n sti
tution fo r any p u rpose, such as the torture of othe rs ,
for exa m p l e . Whatever wi l l b e d o n e t h ro u g h h i s h a n d s
wi l l be covered o v e r w i t h the truth a n d j u stice of t h e
i n stituti o n , w h i l e h e k n ows a n d acknowledges t o h i m
self that h e is n oth i ng b u t deco mposition a n d s h it .
The b o d y of t h e victi m , reduced to corrupt i o n , i s
sti l l t h e locus where s o m eth i n g resists. The tortu re
vi ct i m who fi n d s a resistance i n h i mself, even in t h e
d egradation to w h i c h h e i s su bjecte d , d o e s n ot fi n d
t h i s resistance i n h i s c h a racter o r h i s wi l l ; m i l ita n ts
carry vials of cya n i d e because t h ey k now that torturers
can crush a l l c haracter a n d b reak a ny wi l l . What resi sts
i n o neself are t h e com rades who are n ot corru pt l i ke
on eself, t h e anger a n d suffe r i n g that is born a n d re
born with every g e n e rati o n of repression , the struggle
which did not depend on o neself a n d wi l l s u rvive
o n e .4 What resists i n t h e body of t h e captive, from
whom t h e tortu rer d e m a n d s a confession , i s a n utter
a n ce , i dentifi e d by the tortu re vict i m as the utterance
of com rades in the cause that does not depend o n
o n e , t h e m ute utterance o f t h e suffe ri n g from which
o n e cou l d n o l o n g e r p rotect t h e others, a n d of their
a n ger, from w h i c h o n e c o u l d not expect anyt h i n g .
The tortu re vict i m h ears, as an utterance addressed
4. Michel de Certeau, Heterologies, trans. Brian Massumi (Min ne
apol i s : U n iversity of Min nesota Press, 1 986), p . 43.

C A R R I O N B O D Y C A R R I O N U TT E RA N C E

to h i m , t h e s i l e nce of h i s com rades a n d of h i s cause.

What i s as ked of h i m by t h i s utterance i s that h e sacri
fice his body to the word and that h e d i s i ncarnate
h i mself in the tortu re that red uces h i s body to carrio n ,
i n o rd e r t o rise aga i n a s t h e word a n d t h e truth . I f h i s
cause preva i l s , it wi l l esta b l i s h itself a n d esta b l i s h its
truth . H i s pai n , h i s deco m positi o n , and h i s corpse w i l l
beco m e a n e m b le m a n d a g l o r i o u s m e m o ry a n d wi l l
be rei n scribed i n t h e truth of t h e n e w order.
But if his com rades a n d his cause d o not prevai l ? He
k n ows t h ey may n ot, a n d very often h e k n ows they
w i l l not. H o n o r requ i res that h e d i e without confes
s i o n . That he d i e utter i n g a word of h o n o r in the face
of h i s captors a n d tortu re rs . H o n o r req u i res that h e
p ro c l a i m h i s com m u n ity with those with whom n o
o n e h a s anyt h i n g i n com m o n : with t h e mystics a n d
t h e terrorists a n d t h e savages that p rowl o n t h e outer
deserts of t h e esta b l i s h ed truth of civi l izatio n .
Th i s does not mean that a savage com m u n ity re
m e m bers the valo r of the fal le n o n e t h ro u g h remem
bering his utterance, a n d that a savage com m u n ity
outside of every i n stitution exists beca use there is a
c o m m o n m e m o ry of those val o ro u s i n d efeat.
Those devoted to esta b l i s h i n g the truth are s u re t h at
t h e utterances of t h e tortu red , the s u bversives, the
mystics, t h e i n sa n e , a n d t h e savages, are addressed
to them . The p h i losopher, from h i s d i stance from t h e
esta b l i s h ed t r u t h , h ears t hese utterances m ad e across

Mi

ALPHONSO LI NGIS

another d i stance as a l i e n , a l i e n ated , fo rms of s kepti

cism a d d ressed to the body of d i scou rse esta b l i s hed
as true . The psychoanalyst is s u re that all t h e rheto ric
of the patient's d reams, actes m a n q u es , gestu res, psy
choso m atic sym ptom s , a n d s l i ps of the ton g u e are ad
d ressed to h i m as a doctor a n d father, a representative
of the i n stitution and of the esta b l is hed truth . H i s
therapy i s an e nterprise o f b r i n g i n g t h e s i l e n ce a n d
autistic d i scou rse of t h e patient i nto the fo r m u latio n s
o f comm u n i ca b l e a n d com m o n truth ; h i s science e n
l a rges t h e esta b l ished truth b y i n tegrat i n g i nto it t h e
p rivate myth of t h e i nsane. Postmodern psychoanaly
sis a i m s , as Foucault wrote, at m a k i n g the extrava
gances of H o l d e rl i n , N e rval , N i etzsch e , a n d Artaud
part of our d i scou rse and a project advanc i n g toward
the day when " everyt h i n g that we experience today
i n the m o d e of the l i m it, or of strangeness, or of t h e
u n beara b l e w i l l h ave j o i n ed aga i n w i t h t h e seren ity of
the

positive . " 5

Rel ig i o n

h ears t h e

utterances

that

come from t h e p hysical torments suffered by t h e mys

tics as i nformatio n fo r its ecclesiastical logos. The
conte m porary e n l ighten ment a i m s , as Merleau-Po nty
wrote, at an e n l a rged conceptio n of sense, by i n co r
po rati n g t h e n o n sense of the i nsane, the mystics, t h e
can n i bals, a n d t h e scream s of t h e tort u re vict i m s .
B u t t h e other that t h e carrio n utterance o f t h e tor
t u re vict i m , the psychotic, the mystic, and the terrorist

5. "La folie, !'absence d'oeuvre," La table ronde, May 1964.

CA R R I O N B O D Y C A R R I O N U TT E RA N C E

add resses i s n ot o n ly t h e m e n of t h e i n stituti o n . H i s

utterance i s n o t desti ned o n ly t o t h e esta b l i s h ment of
the truth that tortu res h i m ; it is even not o n ly des
tined to the savages outside of all i nstitutions. The
screams and oaths of the Grundsprache, the f u nda
m ental language, of D a n i e l Pau l S c h reber, and h i s
gri m aces, contortio n s , a n d cataton i a are n o t o n ly s o
m a n y gestu res o f a rheto r i c h i s body addresses t o the
psych i atrist. It i s n ot o n ly add ressed to t h e h u man
com m u n ity, b u t to t h at w h i c h i s oth e r than t h e h u m a n
com m u n ity : t h e celestial b i rd s , t h e rays o f t h e s u n
that seism ically b u rn a n d e lectrify h i m , t h e i n sects,
frogs, a n d rats, and the rocks and the e mpty s k i es.6
" O c k h a m , t h e modern ist, the I ncepto r as h e was
cal l e d , " M i c h el de Certeau writes, " p i o n ee red the no
tion, which gained g e n e ra l cu rre n cy i n theologians'
o p i n i o n , t h at divine power i s fore i g n to any theologi
cal o r m etaphysica l system of rationality . One day,
God may w i l l salvat i o n a n d , the next, the a n n i h i lation
of an e nt i re nati o n . O u r reason has n o stable con n ec
tion with h i s decisions . ' 1 7 The mystic hears the utter
ance of t h i s God in the tortu re he k n ows i n h i s body.
His

carrion

utterance i s add ressed to the God to

whom o n e i s no use and to whom one cou l d n ot offer

one's services.
6. See Alphonso Lingis, "The D i n of the Celestial B i rds," i n David
B. Allison, Prado de Oliveira, Mark S. Roberts, and Allen S. Weiss,
Psychosis and Sexual Identity: Toward a Post-Analytic View of the
Schreber Case (Albany: State Un iversity of New York Press, 1 988),
pp. 130-44.

7. Michel de Certeau, Hetero/ogies, p. 1 08.

MM

ALPHONSO LINGIS

O n e day parl i a m e nts may w i l l the salvation a n d , the

next, the exte r m i nation of entire peop les; in t h e tor
ment of the Q u e c h u a I nd i an s , the Amazon i an peo
ples, the Papu a n s , the C a m b od i a n s , and the Palesti n
i a n s , n o sta b l e con n ecti o n with t h e i n stitutio n s of t h e
scientifico-tech nologica l w o r l d o rd e r can be made. I n
t h e secret d u n geons of cove rt-acti on commandos i n
t h e o uter prov i n ces of the global scientifico-techno
logical e m p i re , t h e tortu re vict i m s do not face t h e in
stitution a n d their voices, their screams a n d thei r
sobs, are n ot recorded b y t h e i nstitutio n . I n the resis
tance in his body, the to rture victi m h ears the screams
of his tortu red c o m rades and h ears the s i l e nce of t h e
suffer i n g f r o m w h i c h o n e cou l d n o longer protect t h e
others, a n d o f t h e i r a n ger, from w h i c h o n e cou l d not
expect anyt h i n g . He hears the g r i n d i n g of the tech no
logical m ac h i ne ry of tort u re in the e mpty skies i nto
w h i c h h i s screams a n d h i s sobs are lost, in the cement
of the d u n geon wal l s i n to w h i c h they are m uffl e d , in
t h e rock strata of t h e s i lent p l anet i nto wh i c h they
s i n k . Yet a carrio n utterance res o u n d s i n that n i g ht
and fog . Somet h i n g of t h e clamor of toads over t h e
swamps sti n ki n g w i t h t h e effl uvia d r i p p i n g o ut of the
pipes of i n d u stry a n d of t h e swarm i n g of centipedes
a n d rats over t h e r u i n s , sti rs in h i m a n d reverberates
in the resistance i n h i m .

iWe cal l society the forms of com m itment, sealed

in

the handshake that marks a n agreement, i n w h i c h we

associate i n t h e exch a n ge of m essage s , resou rces, and
services. In these exc hanges, t h e com mo n d i scou rse
of science a n d c u ltu re can form and col l ective works
be u nd e rtaken in w h i c h we com m u n icate in the pos
sessio n and prod u ction of somet h i n g in com mon .
Somet h i n g else is com m u n icated i n t h e h andshake
that associates after t h e agreement i s conceived a n d
assented to :

the recognition of k i n s h i p .

O u r lan

guage, w h i c h i d entifies t h i n gs a n d person s with ge

n e r i c terms and fo rm u l ates gen eral i m peratives for i n
divi d u a l s , i s t h e l a n gu age o f o u r bodi es whose k i n s h i p
w e reco g nize . I n k i n s h i p , t h e gen u s i s re-presente d ,
corporeally red u p l i cate d , i n t h e repro d u ction o f i nd i
vid u a l s . The com mo n wo rds , with which we designate
the resou rces we separately k n ow a n d the project we
separately u nd e rsta n d , fi n d t h e i r warrant i n the com
m o n a l ity of the gen u s i ncarnated in o u r bodies. In the
recognition of k i n s h i p , the m utual com m itment to the
com mo n l a ng u ag e a n d t h e reci p rocal com m itments i n
the for m s o f exch an ge are confi rmed . The m o n ster i s

ALPHONSO LINGIS

o n e who, i n h i s acts, i mp u g n s the c l a i m of t h e gen us

i n othe r i n d iv i d u a l s a n d i n h i s own o rgan i s m . With t h e
handshake that seals an agreement, each o n e re
n o u n ces the m onster in the i ndividual ity of his o r h e r
body a n d its con c u p i scences.
It i s n ot th ro u g h see i n g "fa m i ly rese m b la n ces" that
o n e recognizes k i n s h i p ; t h e recognition of k i n s h i p i s
a recognition of o b l i gatio n . The p rodigal son that re
tu rns to h i s fam i ly k nowi n g that he wi l l be received
d e m o n strates that when every trust, every c o m m it
ment, a n d a l l com m u ni cation in the civi l ized language
that ceasel essly for m u lates the norms are b ro ke n , b e
i ng-of-th e-fa m i ly su bsists as t h e g rou n d , i n t h e gen e ri c
structu re of o u r b o d i e s , of the i m perative that i m
poses effective recog n ition . O n e's people are those of
one's own l i n eage, a n d also pos s i b l e spouses with
whom one's l i n eage can be reproduced a n d people
w h o will care for one's offspri n g as their own , if o n e
d i e s . Bei n g o f t h e c l a n , bei n g o f t h e same peopl e , o r
even b e i n g N o rth A m e rican o r of t h e white race i s rec
ogn ized in a recognition of o b l i gati o n . This the trav
e l er k n ows , w h o wi l l n ot t u rn away (or wi l l not t u rn
away i n d ifferently) from t h e appeal fo r ass i stance of
som e o n e , with whom he may h ave no i nterests o r
tastes i n com m o n , b u t who, l i ke h i m se lf, i s a Chicano
in Pen n sylva n i a , a N o rt h A m e rican in t h e Peruvian An
d e s , o r a white man in the S ah e l .
I n the association i n t h e exchange of m essages , re
sou rces , a n d services, where each o n e confronts t h e

COM M U N ITY I N D EATH

oth e rs with h i s own i nsight a n d power, there is recog

nition of k i n s h i p w h i c h becomes effective as, in the
exch a n ges contracte d , each a u gm ents t h e othe r as h e
a u g m e nts h i mself. When i n d ivid ua l s associate, t h ey
i d e ntify those o utside t h e i r agre e m e nts as barbarians
a n d m o n sters ; t h e effective recognition of com mo n
h u m a n ity exten d s as t h e exc h a n ge o f messages, re
sou rces, a n d s e rvices with o utsiders establ i s hes a n
agreem e n t with rec i p rocal c o m mitments.
Beyon d t h e effective recognition of k i n s h i p in the
forms of society i s somet h i n g else : t h e b rothe r h ood
of i n d iv i d u a l s who possess o r produce noth i n g in
com m o n , i n d ivid u a l s destitute in t h e i r m o rtal ity. It is
real in t h e exc hange not of i nsights, d i rections, and
resou rces b u t of t h e l ife of d ifferen t i ndivi d u a l s . The
o n e becomes t h e b rothe r of t h e othe r when h e p uts
h i mself w h o l ly in the p lace of the death that gapes
open fo r the othe r .
T o catch sight, beyon d k i n s h i p , o f t h i s community
in death, we s h o u l d have to fi n d o u rselves, or put
o u rselves t h ro u g h i ma g i n atio n , i n a situation at the
farthest l i m its from k i n s h i p-i n a situatio n i n which
one fi n d s oneself in a country with w h i c h one's own
is at war, a m o n g fore i g n e rs bou n d i n a r e l i g i o n t h at
o n e can n ot b e l i eve o r w h i c h

excl udes o n e , with

whom o n e i s e ngaged in n o k i n d of productive or

com m e rcial d e a l i ngs, who owe one n ot h i n g , who do
n ot u n de rsta n d a word of one's l an guage, who are far

A L P H O N S O LI N G I S

from o n e i n age (for even b e i n g of the same age

g ro u p i s a com m itment)-and on whom one fi nds
o n eself c o m p l etely dependent, fo r one's very l ife.
O n e n i ght, sick for weeks i n a h ut i n Mahabali
p u ra m in the south of I nd i a, I woke out of the feve red
stupor of days to fi n d that the paralysis that had i nca
pacitated my arms was wor k i n g its way i nto my chest.
I stu m b led out i nto the starless darkness of the heavy
m o n so o n n i ght. O n t h e s ho re , gaspi ng fo r air, I felt
someo n e grasp my a r m . H e was naked, save fo r a
th readbare l o i ncloth, a n d a l l I cou l d u nd e rsta n d was
that he was from N e p a l . How he had come here, to
the far south of the I nd i a n su bco n t i n ent-farth e r by
far than I who, e q u i pped with credit card , c o u l d come
here fro m m y h o m e in a day by jet plane-I h ad n o
way of l e a r n i n g from h i m . H e seemed t o have n oth
ing, s l e e p i n g o n t h e sands, alone. H e e ngaged in a
long conversatio n , u n i ntel l i g i b l e to m e , with a fish
e r m a n awakened from a h ut at t h e edge of the j u n g l e
a n d fi n a l ly loaded m e i n a n outrigger canoe t o take
me, I k new without u nd e rstan d i n g any of his words,
t h ro u g h the m o n so o n seas to the hospital in Mad ras
s i xty-five m i les away. My fevered eyes conte m p lated
h i s s i l e n t a n d expressi o n l ess face, from t i m e to t i m e
i l l u m i nated b y t h e d i stant flashes o f l ightn i n g a s h e
l a bo red i n t h e canoe, a n d it was c o m p l etely c l e a r t o
m e that s h o u l d t h e storm becom e v i o l e n t , h e wou l d
n o t hesitate t o save m e , a t t h e ri s k o f h i s own l ife .
We d i s e m barked at a fis h i n g port, where h e put m e

COM M U N I TY I N D E ATH

fi rst on a rickshaw a n d then o n a b u s for Madras, a n d

t h e n h e d isappeared w i t h o u t a word o r g l an ce a t m e .
H e s u re ly h ad n o add ress b u t t h e sand s ;

I wou l d

never see h i m agai n . I s h a l l n o t cease see i n g what i t

means t o c o m e t o be b o u n d with a b o n d that can
never be b ro ke n or forgotten , what it m eans to be
come a b rother.
H ow i n d ecent to speak of such t h i n gs i n t h e a n ony
m o u s i rrespo n s i b i l ity of a writi n g he can n ot read a n d
a t o n g u e h e can n ot u nd erstand !
We k now o u rselves i n o u r m o rtal ity.
We act in a world that exten d s as an array of possi
b i l ities ; t h e world we come to k n ow th ro u g h our i n i
t i atives is a field o f s u stenance, resou rces, i mple
m ents, pat h s , d a n ge rs , a n d s h e lters. We appre hend
the possi b i l ities of t h e world with t h e power in our
su bstance to conceive a poss i b l e positio n for itself
and to cast o u r s u bstance with its own forces i nto that
positio n . To act is to q u i t one's existence positioned
h e re n ow, for a poss i b l e position ahead . To act i s to
com mence, to b reak with what has come to pass ; it i s
t o cast what has come to be i n o n e i nto the futu re.
The real i s n ot s i m ply t h e s u m -total of a l l we have
taken possession of a n d m a i n tai n present in a repre
sentation . Real ity l i es before us as so many poss i b i l i
ties o f appre h e n s i o n a n d com p re h en s i o n . The possi
b i l ities we grasp are not s i m p l e d iagra m s held fast by
o u r thought. The f u n ctions and potentials of t h i n g s

ALPHONSO LINGIS

are real because t h ey have to b e reach ed out for by

o u r powers, w h i c h do n ot possess t h e m and m ay be
u nable to reach them . Real ity is cont i n gent; it i s the
eventuality of them being i m poss i b l e that makes t h e
poss i b i l ities we reach for rea l . The real w o r l d exten d s
before u s as a confi g u rati o n o f poss i b i l ities s u spended
i n the abyss of i m possib i l ity.
O u r su bstance acts out of a sense of the conti n
gency of t h e position that s u p po rts it and out o f t h e
sense o f i t s power t o apprehend possib l e positio n s
a head and t o cast itself with its own forces u nto them .
I n every m ovement toward exterior t h i n gs , w h i c h are
grasped as n odes of poss i bi l ity, we sense the conti n
gen cy of t h e real ity exposed to o u r i n itiatives and t h e
eventuality o f the i m potence that t h i ngs harbor. To
exist i n act i o n i s to cast o u rselves with o u r own forces
u nto the eventuality of i m poten ce . I n every advance
across the landscape which promises to s u p port o u r
steps toward t h e poss i b i l ities o f visi o n , across its open
planes and paths l ead i n g to fi nalities, we sense the
possi b i l ity of its prom ises t u r n i n g o u t to be l u res, its
paths tu rn i n g o u t to b e snares, and its contou rs har
b o r i n g a m b u shes. It is in adva n c i n g u nto the exteri
ority of our e n v i ro n me n t that we advance u nto o u r
deat h . Death i s everywhere i n t h e i n te rstices o f t h e
worl d , the abyss l ies b e h i n d a n y of i t s con nections
and b e neath its paths. It i s t h i s abyss of i m poss i b i l ity,
w h i c h s h ows t h ro u g h as we adva n c e , that opens o u r
u nd ersta n d i n g , i ndefi n itely, beyon d t h e t h i n gs wit h i n

COM M U N I TY I N D EATH

reach a n d t h e g ro u n d u p o n w h i c h we sta n d , makes

o u r stance vert i g i n o u s a n d without repose in itself,
a n d makes our existen ce acti o n .
T o act i s t o give form t o one's powers. O n e e nvi
sions poss i b i l ities open to one's powers a n d casts
o neself u nto them . O n e fi n d s o n e ' s s u bstance a n d re
captu res o n e ' s powers i n a nother positio n , a n d at an
other m o ment of prese n c e ; t h e position o n e reaches
is real with the real ity of the world . The powers with
wh ich o n e has l eft o n e ' s position take on for m , w h i c h
s u b s i sts i n t h e n ew position as the d iagram f o r s k i l l s .
T h e potentials a n d fu ncti o n s o f t h i n gs o n e h as taken
h o l d of h o l d o n e ' s forces in forms i n to which o n e can
i ndefi n itely send agai n one's forces. In act i n g , one
d iscovers the real poss i b i l ities of the world a n d fi n d s
one's forces reborn i n t h e m idst o f t h e real potentials
a n d fu n ctions of t h i ngs. Action risks i mpotence, to
mate rialize its forces.
But i n fi n d i n g o n e h as acte d , o n e also fi nds that o n e
leaves someth i n g o f one's powers, thei r very power t o
com mence, i n t h e i n e rtia o f forms materia l ized i n t h e
world w h i c h h o l d t h o s e force s . Someth i n g i s l ost-th e
e l a n o f i n itiative w h i c h su rged forth o u t o f t h e e n e r
gies with i n , t h e power to b reak with t h e past a n d to
arise i n n ocent a n d free, the natu re of b e i n g a b i rth
which was in every power. Somet h i n g of t h e force
o n e has cast forth i nto a poss i b l e position and fi g u re
i n the world, a n d w h i c h is n ow material ized i n t h e
world, i s h e l d there as o n e moves o n . S o m eth i n g o f

M@

ALPHONSO LINGIS

one's power of i n itiative i s l eft i n t h e rented room o n e

pai nted a n d f u r n i s h ed o r i n t h e vacant lot o n e d u g u p
a n d p lanted with trees and flowe r i n g s h ru bs l ast sea
son . The giddy l ightness, the soari n g u psu rge of force
that contracted the dance step w i l l not aga i n be felt
when one recycles that dance step as a performance.
Artists cease to be artists and turn i nto enterta i n e rs
and

i l l u strators,

s i m ply

by

repeat i n g

themselves.

Someth i n g of one's thought i s l eft i n the book that

o n e has written and , were it lost, o n e wou l d fi n d o n e
cou l d

n ot write t h e

same b o o k agai n .

Thoughts

thought all the way through no longer th i n k anyth i n g ,

Merleau-Po nty said ; thought i l l u m i nates o n ly w h e n i t
i s n ot enti rely clear t o itself a n d o n ly w h e n it tracks
forth i nto the u n k n ow n . The won d e r with w h i c h a
thought first

i l l u m i nated

s o m eth i n g wi l l

n ot flash

a n ew when that thought has been fixed as a truth .

Someth i n g of o n e ' s ard o r a n d won d e r is l eft i n youth
and wi l l not flam e up agai n . F i n d i n g one's forces h e l d
i n forms that o n e ' s o w n i n i tiatives h a d actual ized and
feel i n g oneself b u rdened with t h e weight of one's
own i n itiatives i s the i n n e r experience of agi n g . It i s
t h e expe rience of m o rtality, not i n the active form o f
t h e power that casts itself u nto t h e poss i b l e-possibly
i mpoten ce-it conceives, b u t in t h e passi n g of one's
powers of i n itiative i nto passivity. One does n ot o n ly
cast o n e ' s forces agai n st the conti n u ities and i nertia of
t h e worl d ; o n e d i scharges o n e ' s forces i nto t h e i n e rtia
of the worl d . O n e does n ot o n ly risk o n e ' s exi stence

COM M U N ITY I N D EATH

i n t h e wo r l d , i n t h e possi b i l ities that t u r n o u t to be

s n a res and a m b u s h es , but o n e dies in the world and
i nto t h e world . The freedo m of i n itiative feels itself i n
a n anxiety t h at i s not o n ly the apprehensiveness that
sen ses the void of the i m poss i b l e in w h i c h the possi
b i l ities a head are s u s p e n d e d , but also the a n x i ety that
i s angustia, constrictio n in n a r row straits, confi n e m e nt
i n the s h ro u d o n e wraps with one's own h a n d s .
O n e resists t h i s s e n s e of i nn e r d e b i l itation b y fram
i n g one's field of operation s in such a way t h at each
day lays o u t before o n e t h e tasks that o n e wi l l have
the strength to f u l fi l l . O n e sets out to d e l i m it one's
h o rizons a n d equip one's f i e l d of operatio n s i n s u c h a
way that each day that recu rs p resents aga i n an a rray
of tasks a n d i m p l em e n ts e q u ivalent a n d i nterc h a nge
able with those of the day t h at passed and the day that
is com i n g . O n e casts t i m e i n t h e for m of a s u ccession
of days that recu r i ndefi n itely, equ ivale n t a n d i nter
c h a n geab l e . O n e sta b i l izes one's p racticable space i n
such a way that each d ay i s f u l l but o n e retai n s a sense
of a reserve of power. I n t h i s way, o n e defers the day
when o n e senses that one's powers have ebbed ; o n e
feel s , after t h i rty years, t o b e as capab l e o n t h e assem
bly-l i n e o r in t h e office as t h e twenty-year-ol d youth
j u st h i re d . In contro l l i n g one's p racticable envi ron
ment, one prevents the occ u r rence of c ri ses, that i s ,
events that req u i re a l l o f o n e ' s resou rces a t o n c e a n d
whose o utcom e i s u n certa i n . O ne positio n s one's
mind in a n acad e m i c o r i nd ustrial i n stitution where

MM

ALPHONSO LI NGIS

t h e p ro b l e m s from o n e day to t h e n ext are e q u ivalent

a n d where t he re wi l l never arise a p ro b l e m that de
mands a l l of one's i n t e l l ectual powe rs, before w h i c h
t h ey m ay prove fai l i n g . I n one's free t i m e from o n e 's
post, o n e m i n gl es with othe rs with social s k i l l s al ready
contracted ; o n e avoids o n ce-i n -a-lifeti m e encou nters
and adventu res w h i c h o n e senses that o n e w i l l n ever
agai n have t h e ard o r to l ive t h ro u g h . O n e codes a n d
measu res o n e ' s fee l i n gs so as to respond t o the p ro m
ises and t h e t h reats, the cere m o n ies and t h e a m u se
m e nts, the p l aces and the s i ghts, and the news a n d
t h e gossi p with what h a s b e e n felt before and c a n be
felt agai n . One s h i es away from t h e exu ltant o r tragi c
e ru pti o n s , where one's heart wou l d f i n d itself over
whel m ed or aghast, d i sarmed and l eft scarred , s u ch
that o n e c o u l d never aga i n fee l t h e same horror o r
tears o r joy.
O n e takes the othe rs as e q u ivalent to and i n te r
changeable with o neself. To perceive another, not
s i m ply as a n o bject o r an obstacl e , b u t as another
agency operati n g in t h e o rd e red world, is to put o n e
self potential ly i n h i s o r h e r p lace . It is to perceive t h e
other's p resence a s a position that o n e cou l d o neself
occ u py and to perceive the layout about h i m o r h e r as
an array of pat h s , resou rces, obstacles, and s na res
one cou l d m a n i p u late if one stood there , where h e or
s h e sta n d s . In this equ ivalence and i nterc hangeabil ity,
o n e sees o neself in the othe rs and sees the others i n
o neself.

C OM M U N ITY I N D EATH

O n e takes one's p lace i n a layout of tasks anothe r

h a s vacated ; o n e p i c k s u p t h e operatio n s and t h e
s k i l l s from others. O n e takes o n e ' s p lace i n t h e l i
b rary, sitti n g as anyo n e sits and reco d i n g i n o ne's
b ra i n the axioms and proofs of E u c l id as others have
d o n e ; one makes o neself a student, another student.
One says what one says, what everyon e and anyo n e
says, and o n e i nvests one's own d i scu rsive powers i n
for m u lat i n g t h e com mon t r u t h , w h i c h d o e s n ot pass
when any one passes i nto h i s own fi nal s i lence. O n e's
feel i n gs are p ro b i n gs and pal pations whose d i rectio n
a n d fo rm a r e picked u p from others and passed o n to
othe rs ; o n e fee l s about the n ews, the s i ghts, o r t h e
m us i c what anyo n e , everyon e , h a s felt a n d wi l l feel .
O n e sees t h e form o f a s u ccessio n o f days that rec u r
i ndefi n itely e q u ivalent and i nterchangeab l e , and i n
w h i c h o n e has cast t h e t i m e o f one's l ife, p ro l o n g i n g
itself i n the l ives o f others. I n th is way, o n e gives o ne
self the feel i n g that the stren gth one fi n d s agai n for
the tasks of the day i s a crest on the cu rrent of l ife
that comes from an i m memorial past and conti n ues
i nto t h e u nterm i n at i n g futu re.

One

blots out the

sense of the loss of t h e ard o r and won d e r of i n itiative,

with the sense of the rhyth m of l ife-force that rises i n
oneself each day.
Yet anxiety tre m bles in t h i s constriction of the field
of

operatio n s ,

this

confi n e me n t

in

the

com mo n

truths, t h i s constrictio n o f t h e heart-t h i s wisdom of

experience.

ALP H O N SO L I N G I S

The sense of void wel ls u p i n t h e real ization t h at

t h e positio n s a n d figu res of o neself that o n e projects
before o neself in act i o n and those one has left m ateri
a l ized in the s u b stance of the world, are a n o nymo u s .
T h e postu res i n w h i c h o n e ' s action m o b i l izes o n e ' s
own powers, that o f a p u n ch -press operator, a com
p uter p rogra m mer, o r a n office manager, are s hapes
d e m a n d e d of anyo n e by the m ac h i nes, the c i rcu itry,
the l ayout of t h e i n d u stry. The forces one has as a
student, factory worker, soldier, patient, or i n mate are
forces i nvested in one by t h e social e n g i n ee r i n g of the
d i sci p l i nary a rc h i pe l ago, a n d n ot o n ly t h e u n iform one
wears b u t the fee l i ngs a n d the pride o n e has a n d the
i n st i n cts one o beys as parent, l i bert i n e , male o r fe
m a l e , a r e variables of fu n ctio n s decided and mai n
tai ned i n t h e codes of g e n d e r and sexual i de ntity. T h e
position o n e occ u pi es i s a p l ace o n e h a s taken w h e n
another, e q u ivalent to a n d i nterchangeable with o ne
self, vacated it; it is a place o n e w i l l leave to others.
The for m s one has given one's forces are config u ra
tions p i c ked u p from othe rs a n d passed on to othe rs .
O n e touches n ot h i n g of o neself i n them ; o n e sen ses
o n e has made o n eself someone in m a k i n g o neself
a n yo n e . O n e day one wi l l n ot b e there , and the stu
d e nt, lawyer, corporati o n executive, patient, parent,
male or female one was, wi l l be e n acted by another.
The pos itio n s , t h e performances, the gest u res will n ot
d i e with o n e ; they are configu rations on a wave of the
cu rrent o f anonymous l ife where b i rth repl aces dyi n g .

COM M U N ITY I N D EATH

It is t h e n t h at t h e situatio n s a n d days that rec u r lose

thei r u rgency ; one feels i neffectual a n d lost in the
m id st of tas k s that have becom e equ ivalent a n d paths
that have b e co m e i nterchangeable a n d d i rectio n s re
versi b l e ; t h e world recedes i nto i n sign ificance a n d i n
substantial ity. I n the forebod i n g sense of a d ay i m m i
n e n t i n w h i c h o n e wi l l n o t be t h e re , there sti rs an
i m m a n e n t a n x i ety that sen ses that t h e p lace o n e occu
pies i s e m pty of o neself.
The anxiety finds not my own , the thought t h at
comprehended t h e tasks the recu rrence of t h e day set
about m e ; not my own, the hands that man i p u l ated
the i nstru m ents; and n ot my own , the gestu res that
signaled to a n d t h e laughter that echoed that of t h e
oth e r s . The a n x i ety suffers i n t h e s o l i t u d e of some
t h i n g that was n ot yet born i n t h e world . It cleaves to
the secret recesses where l u rk powers of one's own :
s i n g u l a r powers to k n ow, to fee l , a n d to give, which
one's own being there engenders, which have n ot yet
been actual ized , a n d w h i c h wi l l to b e . O n e looks at
one's h a n d , with w h i c h o n e can be i d entified , a n d at
t hese dozen l i nes on o n e's finger that are fou nd o n
no othe r o f t h e fou r b i l l io n right h a n d s i n h u ma n ity,
and o n e u nd e rstan d s t h i s i d entity and these hands
have n ot touched what t h ey a l o n e can tou c h . O n e
senses i n t h e constriction o f t h e heart a fu n d o f force
s i n g u l arly o n e's own , a power, wi red in the i ncom pa
rab l e c i rcu itry of o n e ' s b ra i n , awaiti n g a problem i n
t h e u n iverse for w h i c h n o othe r b ra i n i s w i red , a

ALPHONSO LINGIS

power i n one's n e rvous ci rcu itry a n d m u scu l atu re to

carve idols or to d a n ce or to e m b race as no other
body can carve o r d a n ce or e m b race, a n d a power in
one's s e n s i b i l ity to love o r to laugh o r to weep as no
one can . B u t one fi n d s that one has n ot stat i o n ed one
self in t h e zone where these powers can fi n d what is
awaiti n g them and t h at one wou l d h ave to seek in t h e
outer deserts beyon d t h e n i a p o f tasks that t h e recu r
rence of the d ays l i ghts u p for o n e .
O uter deserts t o w h i c h I a m d riven b y t h e s hadow
of a d eath com i n g for m e . In the anxiety that tre m b les
with t h e s i n g u l a r p u l se a n d heat of l i fe that feel s itself
a n d c l i ngs to itself and wi l l s to be, there i s t h e fore
bodi n g of an i m m i n e n t m o m e n t of i mposs i b i l ity ad
vanci n g u nto it. I n t h e p aths o pe n i n g to anyo n e , anxi
ety sen ses s n a res from w h i c h I shall n ot escape. The
paths a n d t h e t i m e of t h e wo rld wi l l conti n u e , ex
ten d i n g i n d efi n itely l a n d scapes of possi b i l it i es for oth
e rs . I n t h e i m m i n en c e of i mpossi b i l ity that stal ks my
l ife , I see t h e s h adow of death closing off, in t h e hori
zons of possi b i l ity t h at are po,ssi b i l ities for anyo n e ,
those that a r e n o t f o r m e , that a r e for others.
To feel , i n t h e acute ness of anxiety, t h e heat and
the p u l se of l ife t h at i s s i n g u l arly m y own a n d to c l i n g
t o it as a power that w i l l s t o b e , i s t o fee l t h e support
of t h e g ro u n d u nd e r my feet sti l l a n d to feel it s u p
port i n g possi b i lities d esti ned for m e a l o n e . For the
a n x iety with w h i c h a s i n g u l a r power of l i fe i s con-

CO M M U N I TY I N D EATH

cerned with itself is poss i b l e o n l y i n t h e conviction

that the world w h i c h m ad e it possi b l e harbors possi
b i l ities s i ngu larly desti n e d fo r its force s . The concern
for a power wi red i n t h e i n co m parabl e c i rcu itry of
one's b ra i n is poss i b l e o n ly in the conviction that a
p ro b l e m i n t h e u n iverse, for w h i c h no other b ra i n i s
w i r e d , awaits it; the concern f o r the power i n o ne's
sens i b i l ity to love o r to laugh o r to weep as no o n e
c a n i s poss i b l e o n ly i n t h e conviction t h at, i n t h e back
lanes a n d a l l eys of t h e world, there are those who wait
for one's own k i sses and caresses and there are glades
and deserts that wait for one's own laughte r and tears.
The shadow of death c i rcu mscri bes, in the u nend
ing array of poss i b i l ities that are poss i b l e for anyo n e ,
what a l o n e i s poss i b l e for m e . The s hadow of death
sta l k i n g

me

in

particular b ri ngs

out

in

rel i ef the

g ro u n d that i s s u p po rti n g me sti l l and the e n i gmas it

harbors that are for me a l o n e , the conto u rs s u rfaci n g
for the ten d e rn ess o f m y hands a l o n e , a n d t h e com
pan i o n s that are t h e re for my ki sses and caresses
alon e . In its dark l ight, anxiety fi n d s the clai rvoyance
that d i scerns t h e m .
Th i s array of poss i b i l ities o p e n t o b e i n g actual ized
by the actual ization of my own powers s u m mo n s m e ,
with a s u m m o n s d i rected by t h e wal l o f t h e i m poss i b l e
that c l oses i n . I n respo n d i n g t o t h i s i m p e rative a n d
i n resol u te ly adva n c i n g u po n t h e poss i b i l ities that are
possi b l e o n l y fo r me, revealed by the d eath that is
com i n g for me,

recogn ize in

the i m m i n ence of

..

ALPHONSO LINGIS

death , n ot a fatality b u t a n i m perative that d i rects m e

i nto t h e fig u re of bei n g that i s m i n e a l o n e t o b e . That
s u m m o n s my thought upon the poss i b i l ities that are
for everyon e a n d for a l l ti mes, in order to d isen gage
the poss i b i lities that are poss i b l e s i n g u l arly for me. I n
respon d i n g to t h e sense o f m y app roac h i n g death , I
w i l l advance u nto t h e m , d i sc hargi n g my forces i nto
t h e pos s i b i l ities t h e world spreads s i n g u l arly before
me, d i e i nto the world with my own forces. The s u m
m o n s that weighs o n my anxiety d e l ivers m e over to
t h e powers of an existence that is my own a n d i n to a
death that i s my own i n t h e wo rld . The fear of dyi n g
that s u b sists i s a fear of n o t havi n g t h e stren gth o f
pat i e n ce d e m a n ded a n d a fear of o n e ' s l u cidity a n d
resolve n ot havi n g t h e stren gth t o obey t h e i mp e rative
of dyi n g t h at s u m mo n s .
It i s t h e n that o ne becomes aware of others. O ne
no longer sees o n eself i n t h e oth e rs or sees t h e othe rs
i n o n eself. O n e comes to see t h e other i n an other
p lace a n d t i m e . To p e rceive h i m or h e r as other i n
t h e m idst o f t h e e q u ivale n ce a n d i nterc h an geabi lity of
pat h s , resou rces, o bstacles, a n d s nares, is to see one
self bou nd to one's own p lace a n d tasks. It i s the wal l
o f o n e ' s own death t h at c i rc u mscri bes the zone of
poss i b i l ities that are poss i b l e fo r o neself a n d separates
t h e m from those that are for others. Another death
ci rc u m scribes the expan se of poss i b i l ities that are pos-

C O M M U N I T Y I N D E AT H

s i b l e for t h e other. I n t h i s d eferral of h i s o r h e r death

in relati o n s h i p to one's own , the other i s d i fferent.
The m o rtality of t h e other concerns me. N ot o n ly i n
that i t i s t h e sense o f h i s m o rtal ity t h at makes m e see
h i m as d i fferent, desti n e d for a zone of tasks c i rc u m
scribed by t h e death com i n g s i n g u larly for h i m . S u c h
that, as H e i d e gger says, t h e best t h i n g I can do f o r t h e
othe r if I care a b o u t h i m i s to free h i m f o r h i s tasks
and h i s dyi n g , by resol utely p u rs u i n g my own . But the
tasks t h at a re m y own are p rojected i nto the world by
h i s passage to h i s death . I fi n d the s hape of my own
dest i ny i n the o utl i n e of e nterprises that the others
traced i n t h e world b u t d i d not have t h e t i m e o r t h e
power to realize.
I f the late n cy of i m possi b i l ity suspends the s u b
stance of t h i ngs i n t h e i r con t i n gent real ity, it is powers
of appre h e n s i o n a n d c o m p re h e n s i o n that d e l i n eate
thei r s hape a n d d i v i n e t h e i r forces. The world I fi nd
u nd e r my own feet does not exten d about m e as a
m iasma i n w h i c h I grope a l o n e ; I a m born i n a p l ace
that a n other has vacated and sent forth along path s
w h i c h others h ave tro d . For m e , t h e world i s , from
the start, a fie l d of poss i b i l ities othe rs h ave appre
h e n ded a n d com p re h e n d e d , poss i b i l ities fo r others.
What I fi n d as poss i b i l ities for m e are poss i b i l ities oth
ers have left me. Not o n ly poss i b i l ities which they ac
tual ized a n d w h i c h another too can actual ize, b u t s i n
g u l a r poss i b i l ities w h i c h ,

in

actual izi n g t h e i r own

MM

ALPHONSO LINGIS

powers, t h ey were not able to actua l ize . The o n e w h o

resolved t o s i n g h i s o w n s o n g s fou nd , also i n t h e
worl d , t h e s i n g u lar poss i b i l ities a n d , i n h i m self, t h e
s i n g u l a r power t o be a lover, parent, writer, adven
tu re r , w h i c h , in sett i n g out to sing his own songs, h e
had t o l eave to others. F o r to s i n g h i s own songs re
q u i red all h i s s e n s i b i l ity, all h i s powers to grieve a n d
t o j u b i late, a n d a l l h i s t i m e , as t o love another w i t h a
s i n g u l a r love req u i res a l l one's u nd e rsta n d i n g and a l l
o n e ' s heart. G a n d h i , w h o fou n d i n h i mself the power
to becom e the s i n g u la r fig u re of a l i b e rator a n d t h at
of a sai n t h e was born to be, l eft aside t h e power to
be a statesman a n d a lover a n d a parent, w h i c h h e
d iscovered h e was also born t o b e . I n tak i n g m y place
at a post others have vacated , I see in the arrangement
l eft o n t h i n gs , n ot o n ly t h e diagra m of their s k i l l s t h at
can be rei nscri bed on my forces, but a l so t h e outl i ne
of s i n g u l a r e n te rp ri ses that t h ey d i d n ot h ave t h e
power to rea l ize : poss i bi l ities t h ey l eft b e h i n d , fo r
others , for m e-traces of s i n gu la r i m peratives. T h e
pass i n g o f others w h o p u rsued t h e s i n g u l a r powers o f
t h e i r own l ives speaks s i n g u larly to m e .
B o r n i n a p l ace another vacates, s u m moned al ready
by a d eath that is my own , appre h e n d i n g the poss i b i l i
t i es open s i n gu l arly t o m e , I d iscover t h e othe rs i n
thei r otherness, i n t h e p l aces a n d t h e poss i b i l ities that
are for t h e m . The oth e rs who p u rs u e t h e i r own s i n gu
lar powers a l so trace out possi b i l ities t h ey can n ot
actua l iz e a n d l eave for m e . I n t h e h a n d s h ake that

COM M U N ITY I N D EATH

recognizes o u r k i n s h i p , we exchange m essages and

resou rces.
In exchangi n g m essages a n d resou rces with others,
we com m u n icate in t h e c o m m o n time in which the
i n sights of each are for m u lated i n the c o m m o n d i s
cou rse a n d t h e forces born with each are absorbed i n
t h e anonymity of enterprises a n d wo rks w h i c h e n d u re
or d i s i ntegrate i n the material ity of t h e worl d . I n ex
changi n g m essages and resou rces with the other, I
sense t h e t i m e opened ahead of h i m or h e r by h i s o r
h e r antici pat i o n of t h e e n d ; t h at i s , the t i m e the other
exten d s in t h e world by engag i n g h i mself o r h erself in
t h e field of his o r h e r own poss i b i l ities a n d reta i n i n g
h i s o r h e r com m itments. B u t my eyes, my tou c h , a n d
m y word add ressed t o t h e othe r d ivi n e , i n t h e contact,
the v u l n erabi l ity, the weari ness a n d the s uffe r i n g , the
m o rtal ity of the oth e r . The t i m e in which t h e othe r
p u rsues h i s own tasks a n d approaches m e i s a l s o a
t i m e of s ufferi n g a n d dyi n g . There comes t h e t i m e
w h e n t h e other c a n do noth i n g m o re , b u t h as stil l to
d i e . The t i m e of h i s or h e r dyi n g opens t h e black h o l e
of a t i m e that i s n ot that of t h e com mo n wor l d . It is
al ready p resent i n t h e weari n ess a n d s u fferi n g that he
o r s h e h as to e nd u re a l o n e .
I n atten d i n g to t h e oth e r who h as to suffer a n d i n
corn i n g to s u ffer w i t h the othe r who i s dyi n g , o n e e n
d u res a t i m e d i sc o n nected f r o m t h e t i m e of the worl d .
Dyi n g takes t i m e ; it exten d s a strange t i m e that u nd e r-

ALPHONSO LI N G I S

m i nes t h e t i m e o n e anticipates, a ti m e without a fu

ture, without poss i b i l ities, where there is n ot h i n g to
do but e nd u re the p resence of t i m e . What i s i m
pend i n g

is

absol utely

out

of

reach :

i n co m p re

h e n da b l e , u n negatabl e , u n confronta b l e , a n d u npost

ponab l e . What is i m pend i n g is the u n k n ow n , not even
appre h e n d a b l e as the i m poss i b l e , as n ot h i n gness. The
t i m e of dyi n g d i sc o n n ects o n e ' s powers from ends
a n d from t h e i r own e n d i n g . The i m m i ne nce of death
d i scon n ects from one the past w h i c h o n e can recap
tu re , reta i n , o n ly by gat h e r i n g one's forces fo r possi
b i lities.

One

does

n ot advance i n to the d i stan ce

where t h e last m o m en t awaits; o n e fi n d s o neself s us

pended in a t i m e that i s d rift i n g , in which one i s con
strai ned to go on without g o i n g anywhere. The dyi n g
takes place i n a n i n te rval i nter m i n a b ly a n d i m memori
a l ly com i n g from nowhere a n d goi n g n owhere , abso
l u te ly exterior to the time of a personal o r i nterper
sonal h istory.
A t i m e in w h i c h there is n ot h i n g to do but suffer . A
t i m e i n w h i c h you , who have come to h e l p , can do
n oth i ng b u t s u ffer. One i s h e l d i n t h i s t i m e o utside
the cou rse of t h e world, by t h e pai n . The i nten sity of
pain d oes not th row o n e back u po n one's own re
sou rces or one's potentia l ; it backs o n e up agai n st
o neself, o n e is u na b l e to fl ee a n d u na b l e to retreat
from o neself. M i red i n o neself, o n e exists i n t h e pow
e rl essness to bear t h e weight of one's b e i n g . Pain
does

not

i d entify the death whose

i m m i n en ce

it

C OM M U N I TY I N D EATH

senses as n ot h i ngness; pai n longs for noth i ngness as

d e l iverance from the dyi ng, m ore strange than n oth
i ngness, come from with i n , to separate one from the
exteriority of being. Pai n , m i red i n itself, h as not the
force to cast itself across exteriority where one cou ld
a p p re h e n d t h e abyss beyon d b e i n g ; it i s e n g u lfed i n
the i nvasion of n ight a n d crushed b y the weight of
what l ies in the n ight beyon d n i gh t . One passes i nto
passivity a n d d ies i nto what comes neither as n ot h i n g
ness n o r as a n ot h e r existence.
O ne s uffers as o n e suffe rs, as anyo n e suffe rs, as
carnal flesh s uffers. O n e is h e l d i n a t i m e in w h i c h
o n e d o e s n ot advance o n one's own , d i vested of a
oneself that was o ne's own . O n e d i es as another, i n a
dyi n g that is n ot one's own . O n e suffe rs, beari n g t h e
weight o f passivity that i nvades f r o m with i n , u ntil the
p rostration and passivity of one's pai n i s exceeded by
the excess of t h e dyi n g that p u rsues its interminable
cou rse, a n d the o n e that suffers i s b roken a n d s h at
tered i n gasps a n d sobs .
The h a n d extended to the othe r makes contact with
the v u l n e ra b i l ity, t h e weari n ess, a n d t h e suffer i n g of
the othe r and extends one i n to the place of the
other's dyi n g . I t o b eys a strange i m perative . This dy
i n g concerns m e ; o n e is n ot free to j u stify the death
of the other, n ot free to j u stify, with the i mp e ratives
of my own tasks or those of the c o m m o n work of civi
l izatio n , l eavi n g t h e dyi n g of t h e othe r to h i m or h e r.

Ml.W

ALPHONSO LINGIS

I n t h e m idst of o bj ectives a n d e q u i p m e nt, t h e n a

kedness of t h e other's eyes seeks me o u t ; t h e e mpty
handed n ess of h i s gestu res t u rn to m e ; t h e d i sarmed
a n d d i sarm i n g i nsu bstantial ity of h e r wo rds , which
pass without

leavi n g a trace,

s i n g l e m e out.

His

glance, gestu res, a n d words-i m po rt u n ate a n d i n s i s

tent-d isturb the o rd e r of my s ph e re of operat i o n s
a n d contest m e . The o t h e r approaches across t h e wall
that my own death has raised about t h e tas ks dest i n ed
for m e , to contest m e with h e r m o rtal ity.
The

i m perative force with w h i c h

the

other

ap

p roaches i s not in the forms h i s eyes outl i n e as t h ey

scan t h e l a ndscape about m e , i n t h e forms with w h i ch
h i s hands i nform t h e e m pt i n ess, or i n t h e words he o r
s h e for m u l ates a n d w h i c h s i g n a l remote a n d absent
t h i ngs for my u nd erstand i n g a n d my u nd e rta k i n g s . It
l i es in t h e su rface of exposu re with w h i c h h e o r she
faces me. H i s o r h e r fac i n g exposes t h e frai lty a n d vul
n erabi l ity of naked s k i n . It exposes t h e s m oothn ess of
skin,

l eft vi rgi nal

by every expression that passes

across it and van i s h e s . It exposes the n ight of eye s ,

o n w h i c h , u n l i ke t h e i nterste l l a r n ights i n w h i c h stars
exti n g u i shed m i l l io n s of years ago trace t h e i r l ig hts
sti l l , t h e forms of t h e world l eave no trace . On t h e
d i ap h a n o u s t h i n ness o f s k i n w i t h which t h e other i s
com p ressed, o n e sen ses sensi b i l ity, sensitivity, a n d
s uscepti b i lity. O n e senses v u l n e rab i l i ty a n d m o rtal i ty
i n t h e trem b l i ngs of pleas u re that d i e away a n d t h e
a nxieties of pai n that agitate those su rfaces.

One

C OM M U N I TY I N D EA T H

sen ses it i n t h e wri n kl es with w h i c h agi n g i n scribes

t h e p ressu re of i m m i nent death. One senses i t in the
lassitude a n d torpor i nto w h i c h the expressions h e o r
s h e add resses to m e s i n k . O n e sen ses t h e o t h e r , even
in pres e n t i n g h i m se l f or h erse l f in the field of equ i p
m e n t a n d resou rces a n d d i schargi n g h i s o r h e r forces
i nto t h e transpersonal i t i n e rary of enterprises, s i n k i n g
i nto t h e t i m e of e n d u ra n ce a n d suffe r i n g .
The exposed s u rfaces of t h e o t h e r do n ot position
themselves before one as so m uc h data for o n e's i n
terpretation o r as so m u c h amorphous matter for o n e
t o give form a n d sign ificance t o . The carnal b reaks
t h r o u g h , col laps i n g the d i stances across w h i ch its
presen ce can b e represented . Carnal s u rfaces expose
t h e mselves

without

offe ri n g

poss i b i l ities

to

o ne's

powe rs. They halt one's hands in m id-a i r a n d decl i n e

o n e's o rgan izati o n a n d one's projects. They affl ict o n e
with t h e expose d n ess o f t h e i r d i sc harges o f p leas u re
a n d t h e i r spasms of pai n , a n d t h e i r suscepti b i l ity. They
weigh on o n e and d e l iver t h e mselves over to o ne's
tenderness. In the i m m ed iacy of t h e i r presence, they
are i rremediably exteri o r : the su rface of a sen s i b i l ity,
a su scepti b i l ity, a pleas u re , a n d a torme n t t h at is i rre
mediably a l i e n to o n e a n d exposes a v u l n e ra b i l ity and
an alien m o rtal ity t h at s u m m o n s o n e .
O n e ' s h a n d , divested o f i t s power, fi n d s itself ex
tend i n g i nto t h i s zone of suffe r i n g a n d extend i n g its
sensitivity a n d ten d e rness i nto t h i s zone of an utterly

MiM

ALPHONSO LINGIS

a l i e n t i m e where n ot h i n g i s offered o r p ro m i sed . I n

one's l o o k w h i c h atten d s to what the other says a n d
offers l ig h t , i n one's hands clasped i n acknowledg
ment of c o m m o n tasks and com m itment, and in one's
words s u bjected to the m ost remote t h i ngs that re
spond to t h e other, there is also contact of m o rtal ity
with m o rtal ity, a n d acco m pa n i ment in m o rtal ity.
The tou c h of consolation that exten d s to the suffer
i n g o n e is not a p ractical force that b reaks th ro u g h
obstacles t o material ize an e n d . The s k i l l ed hands of
t h e n u rs e a n d t h e su rgeon operate on another's o r
gan i s m l i ke o n a mach i n e t h at req u i res repai r o r a
c h e m ical

compound

t h at

req u i res

refu rbish m ents .

They anaesthetize t h e pai n , extract the b u l let, suture

the torn tissues. The s u ffer i n g appeals to t h e forbear
a nce of t h e o n e who h a n d l es the s u rgical i nstr u ments
a n d t h e d rugs a n d to the com passion i n h i s or h e r
con so l i n g h a n d s . T h e patient convalesces i n patience,
e n d u r i n g t h e t i m e i n w h i c h dyi n g a n d recove r i n g con
tend among t h e m se lves. The touch of consolation i s
n ot itself a m e d i cati o n o r a p rotectio n ; it i s a solici
tude that h as n o idea of what to do o r how to escape.
Its m ovement i s n owise a project; one goes where
o n e can n ot go, where n oth i n g is offered a n d noth i n g
i s p ro m i sed . T h e touch o f consolatio n i s an accom pan i ment, by o n e m o rtal a n d su scept i b l e to suffe r i n g , of
t h e oth e r as he s i n ks i n to t h e ti m e that goes n owhere,
not even i nto n ot h i ngness. The tou c h of consolation
opens the path , in t h e time of e n d u ra n ce a n d suffer-

C O M M U N I TY I N D E A T H

i n g , to an accom pan i ment i n dyi n g a n d fi n d s b roth e r

h ood with t h e other i n the last l i m it of h i s o r h e r desti
tuti o n .
I n t h e com passi o n t h at tu rns to the other, there i s
fear that t h e o t h e r w i l l n ot be able to e nd u re and fear
that the other, m i red in pai n , may not b e able to o bey
the s u m mo n s addressed to h i m . The other feels the
tou c h one b r i n gs to him as a force come from else
whe re that d raws h i m out of h i s pai n , m i red i n itself,
and d raws h i m i n to a sufferi n g that depersonal izes
and that i s n o longer his a l o n e , and n o longer h i s .
O ne goes because o n e fi n d s o neself co mpel led to
go; one goes so t h at the othe r not be a l o n e in h i s o r
h e r dyi n g . Every move o f one's h a n d that i s moved
to tact a n d tenderness acknowledges the i mperative
add ressed to o n e in the s usceptib i l ity of the other.
O n e h as to s uffer for t h e others a n d with t h e others.
The grief, when t h e othe r has been taken a n d no
m e dication o r comfort were poss i b l e , u nd e rstan d s
that o n e has t o grieve .

Mill

P H OTO G R A P H S

frontispiece

Cox's Bazaar, Bangladesh

the other community

Jodpur, Rajasthan, India

the intruder

Anuradapura, Sri Lanka

faces, idols, fetishes

Klungkung, Bali, Indonesia

the murmur of the world

Khajuraho, India

the elemental that faces

Penestanan, Bali, Indonesia

carrion body carrion utterance

Tuol Sleng Museum,

Phnom Penh, Cambodia

community in death

Calcutta, India

The photographs were taken by the author.

ALPHONSO L ING IS, Professor of Philosophy at The Pennsyl

vania State University, is author of Deathbound Subjectiv
ity, Libido: The French Existential Theories, Phenomenologi
cal Explanations, and Excesses: Eros and Culture.

111 1 1 1 11 111 1 1 111 1 11 11

9 78 0 2 5 3 2 0 8 5 2 1