ISSN 1751-8229 Volume Seven, Number Two

Divine violence as auto-deconstruction T!e "!rist-event as an #ct o$ transversin% t!e Neo-&iberal $antas'
Johann Albrecht Meylahn, University of Pretoria
Walter Benjamin (1996) in his article Critique of Violence, n!ac"e# three #ifferent forms of violence$ state%fo n#in& (la'%fo n#in&) mythic violence, state%maintainin& (la'%maintainin&) violence an# lastly #ivine (la'(state #estroyin&) violence) *t seems obvio s to lin" revol tionary violence to #ivine violence as it is a state #estroyin& violence, yet in every revol tion there is alrea#y the #esire (revol tion seen as a means to a !artic lar envisa&e# en#) to create a ne' state, an# th s there is a very fine line bet'een the #ivine violence of la'(state #estroyin& violence an# the mythic state(la' fo n#in& violence) +he , estion that imme#iately comes to min# is$ 'hen #oes #ivine violence (state(la' #estroyin& violence) become mythic (state(la' fo n#in&) violence- *s it !erha!s !ossible that, in n#erstan#in& this transition from #ivine to mythic violence, one can n#erstan# 'hy so many revol tions fail to really create an alternative state- *n an attem!t to try an# n#erstan# this fine line an# to n#erstan# 'hy so many revol tions fail, the #ifference bet'een the t'o nee#s to be n!ac"e# to&ether 'ith an n#erstan#in& of 'hat is a tr ly ethical Act . 'hat is a j st Act as an act of #ivine violence) Why #o so many revol tions fail- Why is it that so often the revol tionary victory brin&s abo t a 'orse or at least similar #ictatorshi! than the one the revol tion o!!ose# in the first !lace1- * see" to n#erstan# this !henomenon, s!ecifically 'ritin& from an African
1

As / san B c"%Morss ar& es$ 0any !olitical movement that attem!ts to transform the #eath1s #ea# (the s"eletal remains of the victims of history) into an an&el1s face (history1s re#eemer) is far more li"ely to nleash a h man hell) *ma&ination, inten#in& to set the 'orl# ari&ht, ma"es a virt e o t of violence a&ainst the violator) *f enli&htene# criti, e sto!s here, it entrenches itself behin# a self% im!ose# an# self%#efeatin& barrier, one that m st be #ismantle# if h manity is to !ro&ress beyon# the

conte2t, a continent that in its recent history has seen n mero s revol tions (or rather liberation str &&les) 3liberatin&3 the !eo!le from colonial #ictatorshi!s or the #ictatorshi!s of the minority an# yet it has been #iffic lt to i#entify a revol tion (liberation) that tr ly s ccee#e#) *n most of these liberation str &&les those in !o'er 'ere re!lace#, b t the livin& con#itions of the majority remaine# the same) /o 'hat is it 'ith revol tions(liberation str &&les an# their inability to tr ly chan&e the livin& con#itions of the !olis- What !revents them from tr ly transformin& the system, transformin& the la' that bin#s the polis to a !artic lar system or hierarchy of !o'er4evol tionary violence mi&ht be&in as #ivine violence, as 5i6e" ar& es, b t event ally this #ivine violence is transforme# into mythic state%fo n#in& violence) 5i6e" ses e2am!les that 'o l# shoc" most liberal hearts, for e2am!le 7 &o 8h9ve: 'ho in ;<<= s bor#inate# the j #icial s!here to his e2ec tive !o'ers (5i6e" ;<<=$>69), or Jean%Bertran# Aristi#e1s con#onin& of Pere ?ebr n (nec"lacin&) (5i6e" ;<<=$>@=)) What ma"es these acts of violence perhaps initially #ivine violence is that they are violent reactions or o tb rsts to the e2cessive str ct ral violence of the c rrent socio%economic%!olitical system) *n other 'or#s, these o tb rsts are e2!ressions of the e2cess violence of the system) Aet these o tb rsts of e2cessive violence are transforme# into mythic violence of state%fo n#in& violence as soon as they become a means to an en#$ the !ossibility of a ne' state) What is often not !erceive# in the ty!ical liberal con#emnation of these acts of violence is the e2cessive str ct ral violence they are res!on#in& to, s ch as #aily !olice br tality to'ar#s the !oor an# the str ct ral economic violence that tra!s !eo!le in vicio s cycles of !overty) 5i6e" ar& es that this is the !aralla2 lesson of terror (;<<=$>69), that there is no meta%lan& a&e 'ith 'hich to #isc ss violence an# or ethics beca se there is no bir#1s eye vie') +he moment yo con#emn the violence of the an&ry mob yo are con#onin& the violence of the system) +he !roblem is that in the history of revol tionary movements this an&ry violence of the mob a&ainst the e2cessive violence of the system t rns into the mythic fo n#in& violence of a ne' system, b t 'hich en#s ! bein& similar to the one the violence first er !te# a&ainst;) +he term B#ivine violence1 conj res ! the ima&es of j stifie# violence as in vario s theories of j st 'ar or even holy 'ar . 'ar(violence in the name of some or other noble ca se) 7o'ever, #ivine violence has nothin& to #o 'ith the i#eolo&y of j st 'ar an# 'ith tryin& to fin# a form of violence that is more acce!table, more j stifiable or more noble) Civine violence is not abo t fin#in& some "in# of balance bet'een str ct ral (la'% maintainin& stat s%, o maintainin&) violence an# revol tionary (ne' la'(state fo n#in&)
rec rrin& cycle of victim an# aven&erD(B c"%Morss ;<<9$1>>)
2

5i6e" n!ac"s this !henomenon by referrin& to the terror (violence of ?enin1s revol tion) 'hich later #evelo!e# into the mythic violence of /talin1s state%fo n#in& (;<<=$>@;))

violence an# tryin& to !ro!a&ate some or other j st 'ar theory, or necessary violence theory) Civine violence, as la'(state%#estroyin& violence, is e2actly that$ it see"s to #estroy the state an# the la' that brin&s abo t the str ct ral (la'(state maintainin&) violence an# "ee!s !eo!le in vicio s cycles of !overty an# ca!tivity, an# it is violent as it #estroys this la'(state(system, b t 'itho t this violence bein& a means to a !artic lar en# s ch as a ne' alternative la'(state(system) +he !roblem 'ith many of the violent revol tions mentione# above is not that they 'ere nj st b t that they 'ere bloc"e#, as they never really challen&e# the system b t only re!lace# the actors in the system) 5i6e" therefore ar& es that Ean#hi 'as more violent than 7itler (5i6e" ;<<=$>@F) as Ean#hi, 'ith his !assive resistance, tr ly n#ermine# the British colonial system 'hilst 7itler an# /talin never act ally chan&e# anythin& b t only re!lace# those in !o'er) Ean#hi1s !assive resistance n#ermine# the f nctionin& of the state a!!arat s an# th s f n#amentally threatene# to #estroy the system by n#erminin& the !o'er that the system ha# over its s bjects by e2!osin& its violent fo n#ation) Benjamin (1996) #escribes the ltimate criminal as the one 'ho #oes not only challen&e the e2istin& la's, as s ch a criminal can be j #&e# an# con#emne# by those very la's that s(he challen&es, b t the one 'ho challen&es the very fo n#ations (mythic fo n#ations . la'(state%fo n#in& fo n#ations), e2!osin& the violence inherent in those very fo n#ations, an# thereby #estroys the very a thority an# le&itimi:ation of the la') +his "in# of violence can be #escribe# as #ivine violence) *t #oes not act in the name of a hi&her la', b t it #econstr cts the very fo n#ations of the e2istin& la'(state, e2!osin& the fo n#in& myth by revealin& the inherent violence in the la'(state) +his is not some "in# of cons!iracy theory ar& in& for the evil intent behin# history an# an evil !o'er behin# the birth of vario s states, b t on the contrary these revol tions an# the fo n#in& of states are #riven by the noblest intentions, as the !roverb says$ the roa# to hell is !ave# 'ith &oo# intentions) +herefore Meylahn (;<11aG ;<11b) ar& e# for the lin" bet'een these t'o forms of violence (state(la' fo n#in& an# state(la' maintainin&) an# the i#ea of see"in& the &oo# (!eace) of the re! blic (state), th s lin"in& violence to vario s inter!retations of 'hat is morally !erceive# as 'hat is ri&ht on the basis of a !artic lar inter!retation of 'hat is &oo#, thereby lin"in& this violence to the "no'le#&e of &oo# an# evil) +he moment one !hrases it in these 'or#s one cannot hel! b t lin" this "no'le#&e to the narrative of the fall of h manity from Eenesis H (obvio sly ta"in& into acco nt that one is from a tra#ition that has been infl ence# by the three reli&ions of the Boo")) Both forms of violence (revol tionary an# co nter revol tionary) believe themselves to be j stifie# by their vario s inter!retations of the &oo# an# therefore they believe themselves to be 'arriors of j stice, or 'arriors in the name of some or other hi&her &oo#) *t is e2actly this le&itimi:ation, the i#ea that the violence

is morally j stifie#, 'here the rotten a!!le is to be fo n#) +o tr ly challen&e the system, the violence inherent in the i#ea of bein& able to establish 'hat the &oo# for the !eo!le or the &oo# for the state is nee#s to be e2!ose#, an# that e2!os re of the fo n#in& violence in the "no'le#&e of 'hat is believe# to be &oo# 'o l# be #ivine violence) +his is the fo n#in& myth$ someone (normally the lea#ers of the state or the lea#ers of the revol tion) have fo n# the "ey (the a!!le) 'ith 'hich to ret rn to the lost !ara#ise) +his a!!le ("no'le#&e of &oo# an# evil) 'hich the lea#ers are believe# to have is the fo n#ation !on 'hich violence is le&itimi:e# . both la' maintainin& as 'ell as la'(state fo n#in&) *t is the belief that the violent or non%violent actions are base# on a hi&her &oo# than the !revailin& systemic (la'% maintainin&) violence of the stat s , o) 4evol tions fail beca se they are le&itimi:e# by some or other conce!t of the &oo# an# th s they fi&ht the &oo# fi&ht in the name of this &oo#, b t in the !rocess they !er!et ate the same violence they are confrontin&) +hey !er!et ate the same violence beca se the fo n#in& myth (!rimal fantasyH) that the lea#ers have access to the "ey (lost si&nifie#) for the ret rn to !ara#ise, remains the same myth) +he only 'ay to move beyon# this #o ble%bin#, 5i6e" ar& es, is #ivine violence) +he !roblem is that #ivine violence cannot be a choice) Ao #o not choose #ivine violence on the basis of some or other hi&her &oo#, beca se the moment it 'o l# be s ch a choice it 'o l# a&ain be state%fo n#in& mythic violence an# re&ress into the same !roblem it is see"in& to overcome) +his choice 'o l# be fo n#e# on the same or similar !rimal fantasy as the state(la' one is challen&in& an# therefore nothin& really chan&es) *n other 'or#s #ivine violence is a form of violence that is not j stifie# by some or other notion of the &oo#, b t 'here the "no'le#&e of the &oo# is s s!en#e#, 'here j #&ment is s s!en#e# an# th s 'here one is confronte# 'ith a &en ine choice (#ecision) 'itho t & arantees, clearly in#icatin& 'hich o!tion is better beca se the moment one has & arantees it is no lon&er a choice b t "no'le#&e) A tr e Ent-scheidung is 'itho t any & arantees that the choice is &oo# or ri&ht or j st as it is a choice ma#e 'itho t havin& any inclination of 'hat is better as it is not s !!orte# by a !rimal fantasy) +he j #&ment of &oo# an# evil is s s!en#e# for a moment an# the choice is th s tr ly free) *t is these tho &hts concernin& #ivine violence an# the !rimal fantasy that brin&s it into close !ro2imity to the ?acanian ethical Act) *n ?acanian terms a tr e ethical Act is an Act 'here the s bject chooses him(herself as s(he becomes a s bject an# is no lon&er j st the object of the bi& Ither1s #esire) /(he chooses her(his o'n #esire an# not the #esire of some bi& Ither, in other 'or#s not some conce!t of the &oo# as #ictate# by /ociety) An ethical Act is to n!l & oneself from the symbolic system (la's) base# on some fo n#in& myth of the Ither an# embrace one1s 0tr eD #esire, an# thereby to tr ly become s bject an# no lon&er to j st be an object of the Ither) ?acan lin"e# revol tionary violence to the tr e
3

/ee /har! ;<<6 for f rther e2!lorations of the !rimal fantasy an# the loss of the si&nifie#)

ethical Act> (7 rst ;<<=$HH=) an# in t rn he lin"e# this to the feminine libi#o b t #evelo!in& it f rther in the form of the feminine inventive s blimation (7 rst ;<<=$HH@)) +he revol tionary 'ho is !re!are# to #ie for his(her free#om Acts no lon&er in a lose lose sit ation of the #o ble bin# #isc sse# above, b t moves beyon# this #o ble bin#) A tr ly ethical Act moves beyon# this choice, b t not in a 7e&elian s blimation of the t'o o!!osites, b t as ?acan ar& es in a feminine inventive s blimation of the niversal !artic lar #ialectic) +o choose free#om, even on the !ain of !hysical #eath, is tr e lifeF) +his choice of free#om is the choice of sin& larity, th s movin& beyon# 7e&elJs Anti&one inter!retation of niversal vers s !artic larity) B t the choice is for the sin& lar (not !artic lar of the niversal) 'here one is 'illin& to #ie for the !o'er to ma"e that sin& lar choice$ the free#om of choice . a tr e #ecision that is not embe##e# in one or other myth of 'hat is &oo# an# ri&ht) ?acan ar& es that ethics an# th s the ethical Act belon& neither to the masc line libi#o nor to the feminine hysterical libi#o, b t in ass min& 'our #esire an# not to ce#e yo r #esire) +h s the ethical Act is to act !on yo r #esire an# not the #esire of the bi& Ither6) Kre # once ar& e# that 0Wo es war, Soll Ich werdenD, 'hich can be translate# as 3+here 'here it (my #esire) 'as, there * (not e&o b t je or s bject) m st (ethical m st) become3 (7 rst ;<<=$HH9)) Aet, choosin& to ac"no'le#&e one1s 0tr eD #esire an# !erseverin& in this choice o!ens one to the ris" of once a&ain fallin& into the tra! of *ma&inary fi2ation 'here one becomes fanatical abo t one1s #esire an# ma"es it into an object of one1s #esire) 7ere a&ain one has the fine line bet'een tr e ethical Act (#ivine violence) an# *ma&inary fi2ation (state(la' fo n#in& violence)) ?acan insists that this circ larity re!resents the facticity of life, an# 'e cannot !reten# to #issolve s ch !ara#o2es 'itho t fallin& into the i#eolo&ical tra! of the *ma&inary) All 'e can #o is live thro &h them$ ne&otiatin& bet'een committe# !erseverance an# obsessive fi2ation, thro &h !ersistent b t caref l reinvention of tra matic #esires, ta"in& into acco nt the revisable conte2ts in 'hich 'e fin# o rselves (7 rst H><%H>1)) 5i6e" &oes f rther than
4

Ine can ar& e that for ?acan the revol tionary1s choice is to ass me yo r #esire (/ee ?acan 199;$H11)
5

5i6e" #oes not e2!lain this ethical Act 'ith the hel! of Anti&one, b t t rns rather to the story of Me#ea as the co nter!art to Anti&one as retol# in +oni Morrison1s Beloved. *n Morrison1s Beloved /ethe sacrifices her chil#ren 'hen she reali:es that they 'ill be ret rne# to the o!!ressive system of slavery a&ain) +h s #eath 'as a free#om &reater than life in slavery (see 5i6e" ;<<<$1F;%1FH)
6

3In the ?acanian acco nt, then, the first ste! to'ar#s ethical action, havin& ta"en the feminine t rn, 'hich reco&ni:es that all oi val es are invente#, is to 3ass me yo r #esire3) +his im!lies, first, that the je m st be ca!able of ncoverin& or reco&ni:in& somethin& of the im!ossible #esire of its 4eal bein&) +he ncoverin& of sin& lari:in& #esire in the re&ister of the 4eal, ho'ever, m st, necessarily occ r as a tra matic invasion of the habit al fabric of the s bjectJs oi i#entity) +o ass me a sin& lari:in& #esire, then, is to allo' its tra mati:in& effects) Ir, ! t #ifferently . for it is not often a matter of an e2!licit choice to o!en the oi to a #esire . in the crisis of its invasion to ass me yo r #esire is first of all to reco&ni:e it an#, secon#, to &ather the co ra&e to face it3 (7 rst ;<<=$ HH9))

?acan an# ar& es that it is not j st a matter of ne&otiatin& the best !ossible bet'een !erseverance in one1s #esire an# obsessive fi2ation, b t to move beyon# these$ to #iscover the #esire as lac", e2!osin& the mytholo&ical fo n#ation of la' (see 5i6e" ;<<<$9;) an# state an# th s to Act not on the basis of this or that #esire or Eoo#, b t to act in free#om an# the s s!ension of the la') +his is to Act in a moment of &race as the Act is not le&itimi:e# as bein& &oo# or evil, b t the Act itself is ! re@, the Act itself is #ivine$ a violence% j stice beyon# la' (5i6e" ;<<=$>@9)) Civine violence #oes not serve any hi&her &oal an# that is 'hy it is #ivine, 'hy it is ! re) Benjamin1s #ivine violence is the 0#irect s bjectivi:ation of (or, rather, the #irect s bjective reaction to) this objective violenceD (5i6e" ;<<=$>=1)) +he Act or #ivine violence is not in the name of the Kather (it is not a masc line #esire), that is to say it is not motivate# by some or other i#eolo&ical j stification of 'hat is &oo# or ri&ht, nor is it the feminine hysterical #esire of the lac" an# th s the brea"in& #o'n of all la's 'ith the aim of see"in& to force the im!ossible 4eal to a!!ear (7 rst ;<<=$HH6)) *t is th s not an active violence in the classical sense of these t'o #esires, in the sense that it is motivate# by either masc line or feminine #esire, an# for that reason it is often seen as bein& !assive as it is not motivate#, le&itimi:e# or a thori:e# by anythin& o tsi#e itself) +herefore one cannot state 'hether an act is #ivine or not beca se to be able to #o that one 'o l# nee# to !lace the act into a mythic system of &oo# an# evil or j stice an# inj stice) *t is for this reason also that there cannot be an ethical call or obli&ation for #ivine violence, 'hich leaves one in a state of !assivity, of not bein& calle# in the name of somethin& to #o anythin&) +o this !assivity 8ritchley res!on#s an# ar& es that 'hat 5i6e" is !ro!osin& leaves one in a 0fearf l an# fatef l #ea#loc", both a transcen#ental !hiloso!hical #ea#loc" an# a !ractical%!olitical #ea#loc"$ the only thin& to #o is to #o nothin&) We sho l# j st sit an# 'ait) Con1t act, never commit, an# contin e to #ream of an absol te, cataclysmic revol tionary act of violenceD (8ritchley ;<<=)) 5i6e" (;<<=) res!on#s to 8ritchley ar& in& that to #o nothin& is the most violent thin& of all (5i6e" ;<<=$>@>)) +o n#erstan# this violence that s bjectivises a s bject, this violence that is abo t tr e choice 'itho t the i#eolo&ical mytholo&ical bac"in& or the "no'le#&e of the lac" an# th s ! rely #estr ctive violence in the na e of lac!, one has to lin" this violence to 5i6e"1s n#erstan#in& of minimal or ! re #ifference or Cerri#a1s #iffLrance) 5i6e" ar& es for a ret rn to #iffLrance (;<<6a), b t he inter!rets #iffLrance as a minimal #ifference) 5i6e" critici:es Cerri#a1s a!!arent inter!retation of 7e&el an# ar& es that 7e&el1s !osition is more intricate as 7e&el is not ar& in& that thro &h &ra# al #ialectical !ro&ress the &a! bet'een i#eal an# act ali:ation can be achieve#, b t rather, 0to ! t it in s!ec lative terms, his !oint is to assert
7

0Civine violence is th s not #irtyin& o r han#s for the #ivine &oal of non%violenceG it is literally a divine violence, a violence 'hich is in itself ! reD (5i6e" ;<<=F$>=>))

a 0! reD contra#iction that is no lon&er the contra#iction bet'een the 0 n#econstr ctableD ! re Itherness an# its faile# act ali:ations(#eterminations, b t the thoro &hly immanent 0contra#ictionD that !rece#es any IthernessD (5i6e" ;<<6a$;H;)) +h s for 5i6e" ! re #iffLrance is the &a! that #iffers an entity from itself (5i6e" ;<<6a$;HH)) +herefore, if one 'o l# ta"e the conce!t of j stice, it is not the relationshi! bet'een the i#eal conce!t of j stice an# the vario s act ali:ations in the vario s la's(states that is at sta"e, b t a #ifference (contra#iction) in the conce!t of j stice itself) +he #ifferent or e!ochal le&al systems are #ifferent faile# attem!ts to act ali:e this i#eal of j stice, not beca se of the lac" in the vario s act ali:ations, b t beca se of the inherent ! re #ifference 'ithin the conce!t of j stice itself) +his, Cerri#a 'o l# a&ree 'ith (see Cerri#a ;<<;)) J st 'ars an# revol tions have often been fo &ht in the name of the correct inter!retation(act ali:ation of j stice, b t s ch 'ars or revol tions only !er!et ate the violence, b t never &et any closer to j stice) Civine violence 'o l# not be on the 0si#eD of a better inter!retation or act ali:ation of j stice, b t 'o l# be on the 0si#eD of the immanent #ifference (e2cess=) 'ithin j stice itself) *t 'o l# be on the 0si#eD of the a to#econstr ction of j stice itself (see Cerri#a ;<<;)) *f one i#entifies #ivine violence 'ith a to#econstr ction then one enters the i#ea of "elassenheit, non% violence, or !assivity) 5i6e" ar& es that 0Civine violence is the very form in 'hich non% violence a!!earsD (5i6e" ;<<=$>=F)) 7o' to n#erstan# this "elassenheit- *t is the non% active violence, as it is not violence in the name of somethin&, b t the violence (e2cess) immanent in the very conce!t of, for e2am!le, j stice) *t is the non%active violence of #econstr ction9) +he #ifference is immanent to the conce!t of j stice itself as an e2cess in the conce!t that is not act ali:e# in the vario s e!ochal le&al systems (la'(state fo n#in& an# maintainin& systems), an# therefore this e2cess can only b t a!!ear as violent) Beca se it cannot be containe# in the vario s act ali:ations of j stice in vario s le&al systems, it cannot b t be seen as evil1<) Cerri#a lin"s #ivine violence to #iffLrance an# #econstr ction an# the im!ossible !ossibility of j stice (Cerri#a ;<<;)) While 5i6e" 'o l# ar& e that the Act (#ivine violence) is j stice, Cerri#a 'o l# rather "ee! o!en the j #&ment abo t somethin& bein& j stice, an# rather ar& e for the im!ossible !ossibility of j stice) Aet, ho' #ifferent are these t'o vie's from each other- +he Act is not in the name of j stice, it is not in the name of any hi&her
8

Civine violence is to be locate# in the ethical overloa# itself, 0it is the 'ay this 0overloa#D a!!ears, ma"es itself !al!able in the !henomenal #omainD (5i6e" ;<<=$>=6))
9

Cerri#a intro# ces the i#ea of the trace to &et beyon# the active !assive #ilemma of #econstr ction beca se of #iffLrance (Cerri#a 19=;$1@)) CiffLrance is not the active ca se of #econstr ction as there is no intent behin# #iffLrance to ma"e it an active ca se, b t neither is it !assive) *n other 'or#s #iffLrance is neither active nor is it !assive, b t it is an active%!assive effect of the trace)
10

0Kollo'in& an inner necessity, the 0e2cessD of &oo#ness (e2cess over e, itable j stice) has to a!!ear as evilD (5i6e" ;<<=$>=F))

&oo# or &oal, it j st ha!!ens beca se of the e2cess in the conce!t itself$ it is an event (a to#econstr ction) motivate# by nothin& o tsi#e itself) +his event itself is j st11) *t is not an e2!ression of the im!erfections of o r act ali:ations of j stice) Aet this event or Act is j st beyon# "no'le#&e of &oo# an# evil an# beyon# vario s inter!retations of j stice an# inj stice an# th s it is act ally im!ossible to state that it is j st an# therefore it is not that #ifferent from 'hat Cerri#a says abo t the im!ossible !ossibility of j stice) +o n#erstan# this one nee#s to n!ac" their res!ective inter!retations of #ifference as either minimal #ifference or #iffLrance) *n this article * 'ill ar& e that Cerri#aJs inter!retation of #iffLrance is not that #ifferent from 5i6e"Js inter!retation of minimal #ifference altho &h 5i6e" ar& es that there is an im!ortant #ifference (5i6e" ;<<6a)) 5i6e"1s inter!retation of Cerri#a, * 'o l# say, is a reaction a&ainst the messianism an# the !erceive# role of the Ither in Cerri#a1s tho &ht) 5i6e" ar& es that Cerri#a insists on the irre# cible e2cess in the i#eal conce!t 0that cannot be re# ce# to the #ialectic bet'een i#eal an# its act ali:ation$ the messianic str ct re of 0to come,D the e2cess of an abyss that cannot ever be act ali:e# in its #eterminate contentD (5i6e" ;<<6a$;H;)) 5i6e" therefore acc ses Cerri#a of hol#in& onto a s!ectral Itherness1; 'hich is the basis for his messianism 'itho t messiah (5i6e" ;<<6a$;HH)) 5i6e" offers an alternative inter!retation to Cerri#a1s messianism 'ith his s!ecifically Pa line 8hristolo&ical inter!retation of the event of 8hrist as the arrivin& of the Messiah an# the i#ea that all that is to ha!!en has ha!!ene#, b t that the &a! remains1H) 5i6e" th s ar& es that there is nothin& to 'ait for, 0'e #o not have to 'ait for the Mvent, for the arrival of the MessiahG the Messiah has alrea#y arrive#G the Mvent alrea#y too" !laceG 'e live in its aftermathD (5i6e" ;<<6a$;HH)) 7e contin es an# ar& es that 0'hat is #iffic lt, b t cr cial to &ras! is ho' this stance, far from con#emnin& s to !assive reflection, o!ens ! the s!ace for active interventionD (5i6e" ;<<6a$;H>)) +he , estion that 5i6e" ! rs es, is$ What 'o l# Cerri#a1s #iffLrance be 'itho t the abyss of Itherness- *t is in this conte2t that he #evelo!s the i#ea of ! re #ifference, in other 'or#s #ifference 'itho t messianism or 'itho t the abyss of Itherness) P re #ifference is$ ho' the element is #ifferent from itself) 7e ar& es that the !roblem is not that 'e are #oome# to the !lay of a!!earances an# that one cannot !ierce thro &h the a!!earances to the n#erlyin& tr e reality) +he !roblem is$ 7o' co l# . in the mi##le of flat, st !i# reality,
11

Civine violence is not as 8ritchley ar& es (5i6e" ;<<=$ >=F) a si&n of o r im!erfection, b t it is a si&n of o r !erfection, 0of o r !artici!ation in the 0no menalD #ivine #imensionD (5i6e" ;<<=$>=F))
12

Cerri#a acts as if the choice is bet'een the !ositive ontoethics, the &est re of transcen#in& the e2istin& or#er to'ar# another hi&her !ositive Ir#er, an# the ! re !romise of s!ectral Itherness) 7o'ever, 'hat if 'e #ro! this reference of Itherness alto&ether-D (5i6e" ;<<6a$;HH))
13

0N'hile 8hristianity, far from claimin& f ll reali:ation of the !romise, accom!lishes somethin& far more ncanny$ the Messiah is here, he has arrive#, the final Mvent alrea#y too" !lace, an# yet the &a! (the &a! that s staine# the messianic !romise remainsD (5i6e" ;<<6a$;HH))

'hich is just there . somethin& li"e a!!earance emer&e- (5i6e" ;<<6a$;H>)) 5i6e" res!on#s to this , estion 'ith the i#ea of frames an# enframin& an# that there is no 0ne tral reality 'ithin 'hich &a!s occ r, 'ithin 'hich frames isolate #omains of a!!earancesD (5i6e" ;<<6a$;HF)) 7e contin es an# ar& es that every fiel# of 0realityD (every 0'orl#D) is al'ays alrea#y enframe#, that is to say seen thro &h an invisible frame (5i6e" ;<<6a$;HF)) +he !aralla2 of the t'o frames is not symmetrical in the sense of t'o #ifferent visions of factor 2, b t an irre# cible asymmetry bet'een the t'o !ers!ectives) 5i6e", in see"in& to n#erstan# ! re #ifference, !lays 'ith the i#ea of t'o frames an# ho' thin&s a!!ear in 0realityD) +hin&s a!!ear in reality beca se they are !lace# 'ithin a frame, one co l# say that thin&s a!!ear (are nconceale#) 'ithin a s!ecific hori:on or 'orl#vie' OframeP) Kor e2am!le, a #o& a!!ears as a canine creat re 'ithin the biolo&ical 'orl#vie' 'here creat res are classe# an# classifie#) *n a #ifferent 'orl#vie' OframeP the same creat re a!!ears not as canine creat re, b t as man1s best frien#) +h s it is clear that a!!earance of reality is #e!en#ent on the frame in 'hich it a!!ears) What interests 5i6e" is not that there are #ifferent frames (canine creat re an# man1s best frien#), b t another invisible frame$ one co l# say the frame of the frame) Ine is not a'are of this frame that allo's thin&s to a!!ear as they a!!ear, b t !res mes this to be the 'ay reality is) +hese t'o frames$ 'orl#vie's an# the frame that 'orl#vie's are necessary for thin&s to a!!ear, are not symmetrical b t asymmetrical) What one has, is$ 0a !ers!ective an# 'hat el #es it, an# the other !ers!ective fills in this voi# of 'hat 'e co l# not see from the first !ers!ectiveD (5i6e" ;<<6a$;HF)) +hese t'o frames never overla! (5i6e" ;<<6a$;HF)) +h s thin&s #o not merely a!!earG they a!!ear to a!!ear, thereby 0concealin& the fact that they are 'hat they a!!earD (5i6e" ;<<6a$;HF%;H6)) +his #o ble framin& conceals the fact that thin&s are 'hat they a!!ear) +he , estion is$ ho' #ifferent is this inter!retation from Cerri#a1s famo s statement that all 'e have is the te2t as there is no o tsi#e te2t (Cerri#a 199@$1F=)- +his 0are as they a!!earD is to say that thin&s are as they are enframe# (te2t alise#) an# there is nothin& beyon# that$ they are 'hat they a!!ear) Cerri#a1s there is no outside te#t co l# j st as 'ell be inter!rete# as there is no o tsi#e of framin&, an# the fact that there is no o tsi#e of framin& is the frame in 'hich framin& ha!!ens, that is to say it is the frame in 'hich thin&s a!!ear as they a!!ear, th s concealin& that thin&s are 'hat they a!!ear) +his lo&ic of minimal #ifference, the constit tive noncoinci#ence of a thin& 'ith itself, !rovi#es the "ey for 5i6e"1s inter!retation of the central 7e&elian cate&ory of the concrete niversality (5i6e" ;<<6a$;H6)) Universality is th s this battle itself bet'een the frames . niversality is minimal #ifference or #iffLrance) +h s 5i6e" can ar& e that the !ro!er #ialectical relationshi! bet'een niversal an# !artic lar is not that the #ifferences are on the si#e of the !artic lar, b t that the niversal is the site for nbearable anta&onism, self%contra#iction (5i6e" ;<<6a$;>1)) +his means for him that

#iffLrance an# the m ltit #e of the !artic lar s!ecies are ltimately nothin& b t many attem!ts to reconcile this anta&onism) Aet, 5i6e" maintains that his master si&nifier for minimal #ifference is not #iffLrance, b t !aralla2 (5i6e" ;<<6a$;>H)) Paralla2 is a shift in vie' an# one co l# s mmari:e this shift in vie' as a shift from #esire to #rive, or shift in the o$ject a) *n #esire the o$ject a is the lost object (the belief that there is reality o t there some'here, b t 'e have lost access to it)) *n #rive the o$ject a is the loss itself an# the ac"no'le#&ement that it is not abo t a lost object (see 5i6e" ;<<6a$;>>%;>F), b t it is abo t lac" . all one has is the te2t, or all one has are t'o frames$ thin&s are 'hat they a!!ear) What is the #ifference bet'een !aralla2 an# #iffLrance- Paralla2 is the shift in vie' from #esire to #rive) Crive is f lly conscio s of the lac" ('here the o$ject a is lac" itself)G is f lly conscio s that all there is is te2t (there is no o tsi#e te2t) an# that one is al'ays alrea#y !art of the !ict re one see"s to inter!ret or n#erstan#1>) +his is not that #ifferent from Cerri#a1s inter!retation that all there is is te2t an# conte#t of 'hich one is !art (Cerri#a 199@$1F=ff)) +h s the shift in vie' is an a'areness of minimal or ! re #ifference an# that 'hat a!!ears is an a!!earin&, an# th s the fact that they are 'hat they a!!ear, BU+ 'itho t this a!!earance bein& ha nte# by s!ectral Itherness, 5i6e" 'o l# ar& e) What 5i6e" is acc sin& Cerri#a of, is that 'ith his i#ea of #iffLrance as both #ifference an# #eferment (Cerri#a 19=;), to&ether 'ith the i#ea of trace, he brin&s in a s!ectral Itherness of a !ast that 'as never !resent an# a f t re that 'ill al'ays still come (see Cerri#a 19=;$1;);1)) 5i6e" is acc sin& Cerri#a of non%lin"in& lin"in& (relation . non%relation) the a!!earance of a!!earance (te2t('ritin&) to reality or the Ither or act ali:ation via the trace . a s!ectral Itherness) B t Cerri#a1s i#ea of the trace is not a lin" as it is clearly a !ast that 'as never !resent an# a f t re that is alwa%s still to come, an# th s there is not a #irect lin" . only a ha ntin& of a lin", as 5i6e" ri&htly ar& es$ a s!ectral Itherness) +he , estion is, can one #o 'itho t this ha ntin& of the &hostly IthernessCoes 5i6e" not have a similar s!ectral element in his materialist theolo&y as he calls for a ret rn to faith, b t 'itho t reference to &o#- *n other 'or#s, a ret rn to an nbelief as a ! re form of 0belief #e!rive# of its s bstantiali:ation . the 0 nbeliefD is still the form of belief, li"e the n#ea# 'ho, as the livin& #ea#, remain #ea#D (5i6e" ;<<@$;6)) What is the #ifference bet'een Cerri#a1s s!ectral Itherness of the trace an# 5i6e"1s n#ea#- +he Ither for Cerri#a remains #ea#(absent as he ar& es that the s !!lement al'ays is the absence of

14

/ee 5i6e"$ 0MaterialismN)resi#es in the refle2ive t'ist by means of 'hich * myself am incl #e# into the !ict re constit te# by meD (5i6e" ;<<6a$;>H))

10

!resence (see article in &f "ra

atolog%, B+hat Can&ero s / !!lementN1 Cerri#a

199@$1>1%16>) an# the phar a!on1F is al'ays the #eath or !oison of !resence) Aet Cerri#a ar& es that faith is the only 'ay to cross the #esert, the #esert of the infinite #esertification of lan& a&e, the name of Eo# (Cerri#a 199F)) 7is faith, or his trace of Itherness, is also 'itho t any s bstantiali:ation j st as 5i6e"1s n#ea#) 5i6e" lin"s his materialist theolo&y #irectly 'ith 8hristianity an# s!ecifically Pa l1s inter!retation of the 8hrist event) What 5i6e" #enies are that the s!ecters that ha nt his materialist theolo&y are not that #ifferent to the s!ecters of Itherness in Cerri#a an# th s Cerri#a1s #irect ac"no'le#&ment of these s!ecters in his conce!t of the trace are more hel!f l, s!ecifically 'hen ta"in& his i#ea of #eferment into consi#eration 'hen inter!retin& the 8hrist event, as in#ee# 8hrist has come, b t 8hrist is also still to come$ the secon# comin&) +he "in&#om has come, as the event has ha!!ene#, b t it al'ays still remains to come as 'ell in f ll com!letion) +h s in the 8hrist event there is both #ifference an# #eferment) Cerri#a1s #iffLrance is th s more hel!f l in inter!retin& these 8hristian te2ts materialistically than 5i6e"1s !aralla2) +he cross is in#ee# #econstr ction, the #eath of Eo#, an# th s one co l# say that the cross of 8hrist is loss as o$ject a, 'hich #rives the 8hristian ch rch, b t this #rive is im!assione# by the lac" or the #esertification of lan& a&e (Eo#) an# this #esert can only be crosse# in faith an# ho!e) 7o' can lac" im!assion faith an# ho!e if it is not ha nte# by the tracePrayer as an act of faith is not a##resse# to the Ither, as 5i6e" s &&ests (;<<6a), b t !rayer as e2!ression of faith ('itho t s bstantialisation) has the ability to cross the infinite #esertification of lan& a&e) *t is faith not in anythin& concrete, s bstantial or act al, b t in 'hat 'as, b t never !resent an# 'hat is al'ays still to come) +h s !rayer, #irecte# to'ar#s both the minimal #ifference as 'ell as the #eferment in the ho!e of 'hat is alwa%s still to come, !rovi#es the im!et s for the lea! of faith . the tr e #ecision (Entscheidung)$ the ethical Act(#ivine violence) +he only 'ay to tr ly n!l & (5i6e" ;<<<$1;Hff) from the system, that is to move beyon# the a!oretic circle 'here the o!tion is to !ersevere 'ith one1s #esire, b t in !erseverin& one falls victim to the *ma&inary fi2ation (7 rst ;<<=$H><%H>1), or state# #ifferently$ the only 'ay to move beyon# transformin& the #ivine violence into a ne' state% fo n#in& violence, is via an active%!assive or non%violent violence of #ivine violence) What this means is, not active (violent) in the name of some hi&her &oo# or &oal, b t neither !assive as in non%activity, b t "elassenheit) +his is a "elassenheit of the a to#econstr tion of #iffLrance)
15

/ee Cerri#a1s #isc ssion on the phar a!on 'hich is Plato1s inter!retation of 'ritin& as both reme#y (that 'hich !reserves !resence), b t also !oison (that 'hich #estroys !resence) (Cerri#a 19=1$99f))

11

+his non%violent violence of #ivine violence or the Act can be e2!laine# by n#erstan#in& the violent #eman# of Jes s to his #isci!les$ 0if anyone comes to me an# #oes not hate his father an# his mother, his 'ife an# chil#ren, his brothers an# sisters . yes even his o'n life . he cannot be my #isci!leD (5i6e" ;<<=$>=@)) +his has to #o 'ith o r bein& !art of the str ct ral violence of the bi& Ither an# the only 'ay to move beyon# or to n!l & from this, is via hatre#) 7atre# is the first reaction to the violence of the state(system, the violence of the socio%symbolic net'or") +his hatre# that 8hrist #eman#s is 0not a "in# of !se #o%#ialectical o!!osite of love, b t a #irect e2!ression of 'hat /t) Pa l, 'ith an ns r!assable !o'er in 1 8orinthians 1H, #e!loye# as agape, the "ey interme#iary term bet'een faith an# ho!e$ it is love itself that enjoins s to 0 n!l &D o rselves from the or&anic comm nity into 'hich 'e 'ere bornND (5i6e" ;<<=$>=@)) +his echoes ?acan1s ar& ment that the only tr ly ethical Act is love16) 0+he #omain of ! re violence, the #omain o tsi#e la' or le&al !o'er, the #omain of that violence 'hich is neither la'%fo n#in& nor la'%s stainin&, is the do ain of loveD (5i6e" ;<<=$>==)) +his n!l &&in& as an act of #ivine violence or an ethical Act as bein& in the #omain of love 'ill be f rther n!ac"e# by brin&in& the above i#eas into conversation 'ith ?acan1s #isco rse theory (?acan 1991)) +his n!l &&in& be&ins 'ith an a'areness of the #esire of the other, or in terms of the above #isc ssion it be&ins 'ith a shift in vie' from #esire to #rive) +h s be&innin& to hate one1s father an# mother is a hatre# of the symbolic or#er (the bi& Ither)) *t is a reaction to the objectification of the self thro &h the #esire of the Ither) +his is the first reaction to the e2cessive violence of the state%fo n#in&, state%maintainin& violence) * 'ill be&in by e2!lorin& the Eenesis (Eenesis H) story of fallen h manity) +he story of the tree of "no'le#&e can tra#itionally be inter!rete# as a !rimal fantasy1@ to e2!lain the lost !ara#ise) *n the first section of this article it 'as ar& e# that it is here 'here the rotten a!!le is to be fo n#, beca se this is the tra#itional inter!retation of the Eenesis narrative as the story of !ara#ise lost) +he stran&e thin& is that 'hat is believe# to be the 'ay to re&ain entrance to !ara#ise, in this tra#itional !rimal fantasy inter!retation, is to re!eat the ori&inal sin, 'hich is to see" to have "no'le#&e of the &oo# an# th s to be able to o!!ose evil, an# once all evil is era#icate# h manity co l# ret rn to the lost !ara#ise) *n other 'or#s, the story 'as never act ally rea#, b t it 'as inter!rete# as this !rimal fantasy of lost !ara#ise an# that some'here hi##en is the "ey 'ith 'hich to re&ain access to !ara#ise$ the state of harmony) +he "ey 'as believe# to be "no'le#&e of &oo# an# evil) Ine can rea# this story #ifferently, namely as a creation story that see"s to e2!lain 'hy thin&s are the 'ay they are,
16 17

Kor ?acan the tr e ethical Act is motivate# by love an# not la' (7 rst ;<<=$H;9)

0+he !rimal fantasy re!resents 'hat occ rre# at castration in the terms of a narrative of !ossession an# loss) +his fantasm th s consoles the s bject by !ositin& that s(he at one !oint #i# have the !hallic +hin&, b t that then at castration, it 'as ta"en from the s bjectD (/har!;<<6)

12

an# !art of this creation story is to e2!lain 'hy h mans are the 'ay they are$ #ivi#e# s bjects in ?acanian terms) +he Eenesis story is th s not a !rimal fantasy story, or a master #isco rse of the loss of the si&nifie#, b t a revelation of the Breal1 . the #ecentere#, Bna"e# self1D (see Meylahn ;<1<$@)) Placin& this story into ?acan1s #isco rse theory, one can ar& e that in the !osition of the a&ent yo have the fr it of "no'le#&e (Meylahn ;<1<$@) as the object of #esire, namely that 'hich 'ill brin& h manity into nion 'ith its 8reator) +he s !!ose# &ift of this fr it is "no'le#&e of &oo# an# evil (/;) this 'ill be in the !osition of "no'le#&e 'hich im!arts the ability to classify thin&s as either &oo# or evil th s &ivin& the s bject mastery over the other (/1)) +his is the master si&nifier (/1) that 'ill cover ! the shortcomin& or the absence bet'een 8reator an# creation, namely mastery over others(creation1=) Aet, after eatin& of the fr it A#am an# Mve #o not e2!erience themselves nite# 'ith the 8reator, b t on the contrary they e2!erience themselves #ivi#e# an# se!arate#$ na"e#) +he conse, ence of this eatin& (#isobe#ience) is castration as they are e2!elle# from !ara#ise (Meylahn ;<1<$@% =)) Eenesis H can th s be rea# as a narrative that reveals to h manity its Btr e1 state 'here bein& banne# from !ara#ise is not beca se of some lost object, b t beca se of a state of tr th, namely the tr th of the &a! bet'een 8reator an# creation, an# that this se!aration is essential for the s bject to e2ist) +h s if one 'o l# !lace this story into the ?acanian #isco rse form la, in the !lace of truth n#er the bar is the barre# self see"in& to be li"e Eo#) Above the bar, in the !osition of agent, is the fr it in the !lace of !nowledge (/;)G is the "no'le#&e 'hich the fr it in tr th offers . not the "no'le#&e of &oo# an# evil, b t the "no'le#&e of ! re #ifference(#ifference) +h s the product of this #isco rse is /1 . the master si&nifier as a na"e# barre# *, 'hich is lin"e# to the tr th of the #isco rse$ a na"e# barre# *, see"in& eternally to bri#&e the &a!, by see"in& the lost object a as in the #esire) +his is 'hy history re!eats itself in an ever !er!et atin& cycle of violence) +he , estion is, ho' can one n!l & from this cycle of violence- +he 'ay to n!l & is, as 5i6e" has ar& e#, to shift the vie' (!aralla2) from #esire for the lost object a to a #rive 'here the object a is loss, that is to say the na"e# self is acce!te# an# #oes not see" to overcome the sym!tom of bein& na"e# b t embraces its sym!tom$ na"e#ness) +his n!l &&in& 'o l# be an Act of #ivine violence) ?acan1s #isco rses also hel! one in inter!retin& both ca!italism an# the vario s fantasies that ca!italism creates so as to contin e as #ominant #isco rse, an# this is the bac"&ro n# that nee#s to be inter!rete# to n#erstan# ho' the 8hrist #isco rse is an Act of n!l &&in& from this fantasy an# thereby transversin& the neo%liberal !erversion)

18

/ee Qerhae&he 1999$=9%9= inter!retation of the master si&nifier)

13

*n ?acan1s ca!italist #isco rse one #iscovers that ca!italism, or rather the ca!italist mar"et, is the hi##en #ominant #isco rse) *n the #isco rse of ca!italism the s bject becomes an a&ent of the mar"et 'hich is in the !osition of the tr th of the ca!italist #isco rse (Meylahn ;<1<$H)) *f the s bject is the a&ent of the mar"et then, as ?acan ar& e#, every in#ivi# al is really a !roletarian in the &lobal ca!italist #isco rse (see Ceclerc, ;<<6$@F)) Aet, the s bject 'ill not acce!t bein& an a&ent (slave) of the mar"et an# therefore a fantasy nee#s to be create# to convince the s bject that s(he is 0act allyD free an# not a slave of the mar"et, b t that on the contrary the mar"et serves the free#om of the self) +h s the tr th of the ca!italist #isco rse nee#s to be i#eolo&ically covere# ! an# this is #one by creatin& a fantasy that offers another tr th, 'hich the s bject 'ill acce!t an# thereby na'are remain an obe#ient a&ent of the mar"et) +he fantasy that is create# is that the tr th is the object of #esire, 'hich are the objects of !ro# ction) +he s bject believes s(he is free an# is an in#ivi# al s bject in his(her o'n ri&ht if they are convince# that they are free to choose 'hat they #esire$ the objects of #esire) +h s this fantasy !roclaims$ yo are 'hat yo #esire(cons me (see Ceclerc, ;<<6$@F)) +he s bject is th s no lon&er enslave# to the mar"et as its a&ent, b t is enslave# to the objects of !ro# ction (the objects of #esire that are believe# to be freely chosen) (?acan ;<<1$>1F)) +he self (i#entity) is #e!en#ent on these objects, for e2am!le, the car * #rive, the ho se * live in an# the labels of my clothes say so m ch abo t me an# tell the tr th of 'ho * am$ * am a s ccessf l b siness man) B t 'ho #efines or #eci#es 'hat objects are #esirable- Who #eci#es 'hich Jeans are fashionable- +he anonymo s bi& Ither #eci#es 'hat is #esirable via fashion ma&a:ines, etcetera) +he Ither #efines 'hat is #esirable, 'hat car is essential for yo r ni, e i#entity, 'hat clothes 'ill tr ly ma"e yo into the man yo 'ant to be) +he Ither #eci#es 'hat is #esirable, an# therefore it is the Ither 'ho tells me 'ho * am) +his sit ation, 'here the Ither tells me 'ho * am, is the #isco rse of the hysteric, an# as is ty!ical of the hysteric it contin es beca se the self is never satisfie# 'ith the ans'er the Ither &ives) /(he is never satisfie# 'ith the object of #esire that has been i#entifie# as #esirable by the Ither (Kashion) an# the moment s(he has this object it loses its #esirability, beca se others also have it an# therefore it can no lon&er be the one thin& that ma"es me ni, e) Aet, this #isa!!ointment #oes not res lt in insi&ht into the fantasy of the mar"et, b t rather the self believes s(he has ma#e the 'ron& choice of object an# th s frantically contin es to as" the Ither$ 'hat ma"es me #esirable ('ho am *)- An# the Ither contin es to ans'er, th s contin o sly !ro# cin& ne' objects of #esire(cons m!tion, 'hich is e2actly 'hat ca!italism nee#s$ contin o s !ro# ction) /o this is a very effective fantasy that "ee!s ca!italism &oin& (see Meylahn ;<1<$>%F)) 5i6e" calls this 0the e2!losion of the hysterical ca!italist s bjectivity that re!ro# ces itself thro &h !ermanent self%revol tioni:in& thro &h the inte&ration of the e2cess into the

14

0normalD f nctionin& of the social lin"D (5i6e" ;<<6b)) Another fantasy, the #isco rse of the niversity, there is the contin o s !ro# ction of "no'le#&e in never en#in& attem!ts to re# ce the other to the same (Meylahn ;<1<$>%F), 'hich is e2actly 'hat ca!italism nee#s$ contin o s !ro# ction of "no'le#&e that can be sol#) *n the niversity #isco rse the !osition of tr th is fille# 'ith a master si&nifier as a sin&le f n#amental tr th to 'hich everythin& can be re# ce# (Meylahn ;<1<$F)) +his tr th (/1) a##resses itself an# comm nicates thro &h its a&ent (/;) "no'le#&e systems, theories, !ara#i&ms, etcetera) +he !osition of the other is fille# 'ith the !otential convertee or the n"no'n object 'hich is a##resse# by the a&ent (/;) 'ith the intent to re# ce it to the same of the "no'le#&e system base# on the fo n#ational tr th) +h s the other is the object that nee#s to be $egriffen ( n#erstoo#) or ergriffen (ta"en) by re# cin& it to an i#ea of the tr th ($egriff)) +he !ro# ct is a s bject (s bject matter) that is #efinable, b t the !roblem is that there al'ays remains a #iffLrance an# th s this !rocess is also contin o s 'ith ever more !ro# ction of "no'le#&e, 'hich in t rn can be sol#, an# th s the ca!italist #isco rse thrives on the niversity #isco rse as m ch as on the #isco rse of the hysteric) +he rise in f n#amentalism as 'ell as the rise in stron& theories from vario s self%hel! man als to cons!iracy theories all hel!s the mar"et as these are hi&hly !o! lar) 7o' is it !ossible to n!l & from this fantasy an# th s tr ly challen&e the ca!italist #isco rse in an Act of #ivine violence*s there a 'ay to brea" o t, to tr ly Act 'ith an Act of #ivine violence an# ret rn, not to the !rimal lost !ara#ise, b t acce!t the tr th of Eenesis$ namely a barre# na"e# self?acan s &&ests the #isco rse of the analyst as a #isco rse to ret rn to the na"e# barre# self, an# 5i6e" has ar& e# for !aralla2 . to t rn from #esire of the lost object a to a #rive for loss as object a) *n these last !ara&ra!hs * 'ill n!ac" the #isco rse of the analyst as a 8hrist% #isco rse in li&ht of te2ts from the Eos!el of John) 8hrist is not the a&ent of this #isco rse j st as the analyst is not the a&ent of the #isco rse of the analyst (Meylahn ;<1<$=)) +he a&ent of this #isco rse is the #esire for ! re #ifference as 'as e2!laine# aboveG it is to move from #esire to #rive 'here the o$jet petit a is not the lost object, b t loss itself) +he a&ent is a #esire (#rive) for ! re #ifference 'itho t #estroyin& #ifference) +o n!ac" this in ?acanian terms, it is to !reserve in the tr e self1s #esire 'itho t this #esire becomin& an *ma&inary fi2ationG or in 5i6e"ian terms, it is the #rive of an Act of #ivine violence 'itho t this violence becomin& mythic (state(la' fo n#in& violence)) As 'as #isc sse# above, the only 'ay to !ersevere in one1s #esire as #rive or the only tr e Act as #ivine violence is love) Inly tr e love as 8hrist reveale# it$ love of enemiesG love of the other as other 'itho t re# ction to the same) Inly the ncon#itionality of &race

15

'hich #eman#s nothin& in ret rn, can embrace #ifference 'itho t incl #in& it in the same of some totali:ation (Meylahn ;<1<$=)) +h s love an# &race are the a&ents of this 8hrist%#isco rse that has the ability to ta"e the tr th of the Eenesis #isco rse serio sly, namely the na"e# self, 'itho t attem!tin& to esca!e from the sym!tom or heal this sym!tom of na"e#ness, b t tr ly embrace the sym!tom) ?ove an# &race are also the #esires of 8hrist j st as ! re #ifference is the #esire of the analyst) +his #esire is reveale# in the ne' comman#ment (John 1H$H>)) +he a&ent or a&ency of this #isco rse (ethical Act), #ivine violence, is only !ossible in the s s!ension of la's of "no'le#&e of &oo# an# evil as 'as #isc sse# above) +h s one can say that the Act is only !ossible in a conte2t of &race (sola &ratia) an# the a&ent (a&ency), Act or #ivine violence is love, love beyon# "no'le#&e (1 8orinthians 1H) of &oo# an# evil) Aet love an# &race are also the #esires of the s bject (the analysan#) 'ho #esires 'hat the analyst #esires) +he s bject nee#s to be love# (acce!te#), an# not j st love# beca se s(he has the !hallic thin&, b t love# ncon#itionally (o t of &race alone)) What tr th #rives this #esire- What tr th #rives this #isco rse- *t is the tr th reveale# in EenesisG the tr th of ! re, na"e# #ifference or #iffLrance) +he tr th that drives this #isco rse is not the lost object a (the fr it of "no'le#&e of &oo# an# evil), b t it is "no'le#&e of #ifference$ ! re #ifference or #iffLrance) +h s in the !osition of tr th of this 8hrist% #isco rse one can ! t the "no'le#&e of #iffLrance) *n the Eos!el of John, 8hrist #escribes himself as the tr th, the 'ay an# the life (John 1>)) +his tr th cannot be inter!rete# as a master si&nifier, b t if anythin& it is the servant si&nifier that 'ashes feet (John 1H) that reveals a 'ay to act, a 'ay to live) What content #oes 8hrist &ive to this tr th- 7e comman#s those 'ho see" to follo' him to love, as this 'ill be the only criteria 'hereby they 'ill be "no'n as belon&in& to him (John H>$H>f)) What "in# of love is this- 8hrist res!on#s an# says$ Bno &reater love can anyone have than to lay #o'n his life for another1 (John 1F$1H)) +his layin& #o'n of one1s life can be &iven a Cerri#ian inter!retation (see Meylahn ;<1<$=) as ra#ical hos!itality, 'hich means to o!en yo rself to the other to s ch an e2tent that the other becomes host an# yo hosta&e in yo r o'n home (Cerri#a ;<<<)) 5i6e" 'o l# !robably not a&ree 'ith this "in# of em!hasis on the other, as ! re #ifference is not abo t the other, b t abo t the contra#iction 'ithin the conce!t itself) +h s it is not abo t o!enin& the home to the other, b t abo t becomin& a'are of the inner contra#iction of the conce!t home 'hich brea"s the home o!enG that the home is contra#icte# in itself an# that there is this nbri#&eable &a!, lac" or ! re #ifference) +h s the home is #estroye#, not by the other, b t by its o'n contra#iction) +he home (self) is bro"en o!en either by ! re #ifference or #iffLrance) +his is ac"no'le#&e# an# love# 'itho t the horror of either tryin& to re# ce the other to the same or see"in& to cover ! the lac" 'ith

16

some object a) 5i6e" ar& es for !aralla2 of the vie' that transforms #esire for the lost object into the #rive 'here the object a is loss itself) +his "no'le#&e of ! re #ifference #econstr cts the self, e2!osin& it as na"e# an# v lnerable, an# this is the truth of the "no'le#&e of ! re #ifference or #iffLrance) ?ove an# &race as a&ents of the Btr th1 are comm nicate# to the Bother1) *n the !osition of the Bother1 is the #ebarre# self, str &&lin& to co!e 'ith its sym!tom) Aet in the li&ht of the a&ent (love an# &race) it reali:es that it #oes not nee# the !hallic thin& of #esire to be love# an# acce!te#) 0?ove an# &race th s #econstr ct the #eman# of the (la') of all the !hallic si&nifiers (/1) that have enslave# the Bself1 in the master #isco rseG #econstr ct the hysterical #esire for ever more "no'le#&e (/;) of Bself1G an# #econstr ct the #isco rse of the niversity1s nee# to re# ce the Bother1 to the same (a)D (Meylahn ;<1<$=)) +his #econstr ction or transversin& of the #eman#s of the la', of the #esires, of these fantasies create# to !rotect the ca!italist #isco rse, releases the self to reco&ni:e itself in the li&ht of love an# &race an# the !ro# ct of this is a ne' i#entity (/1)) +his ne' i#entity is not a master si&nifier, b t a servant si&nifier, an 01*1 that embraces (loves) an# becomes its sym!tom (na"e#) as it reali:es that, in the eyes of the Bother1, they are love# 'itho t any si&nifiers$ as na"e#D (Meylahn ;<1<$=)) +his 8hrist #isco rse offers a non%violent violent transversin& of the ca!italist fantasy as an ethical Act, as a #ivine violence beyon# the violence of state%fo n#in& an# state% maintainin&, b t as an Act of love)

(e$erences
Benjamin, W), 1996, B8riti, e of Qiolence, in P) Cemet: (e#)), 'eflections( Essa%s, aphoris s, auto$iographical writings, trans) M) Je!hcott, !!) ;@@%H<1, /choc"en, Re' Aor") B c"%Morss, /), ;<<9, )egel, )aiti, and *niversal )istor%, University of Pittsb r&h Press, Pittsb r&h 8ritchley, /), ;<<=, BQiolent tho &hts abo t /avoj 5i6e",1 +a!ed ,unch 11, A t mn free s !!lement) Ceclerc,, K), ;<<6, B?acan on the ca!italist #isco rse$ its conse, ences for libi#inal enjoyment an# social bon#s, ,s%choanal%sis, Culture - Societ% 11, @>%=H Cerri#a, J), 19=1, .isse ination, transl) B) Johnson, 8ontin m, Re' Aor")

Cerri#a, J), 19=;, /argins of ,hilosoph%, trans) A Bass, 7arvester, Bri&hton) Cerri#a, J), 199F, B/a f le nom1 in J) Cerri#a S +) C oit (e#), &n the na e, transl C) Woo#, J)J) ?eavey S *) Mc?eo#, !!) HF%==, /tanfor# University Press, /tanfor#)

17

Cerri#a, J), 199@, &f "ra

atolog%, transl) E)8) /!iva", John 7o!"ins Press, Baltimore

Cerri#a, J), ;<<<, &f hospitalit%0 1nne .ufour antelle invites 2acques .errida to respond, trans) 4 Bo'lby, /tanfor# University Press, /tanfor#) Cerri#a, J), ;<<;, Korce of la'$ +he 0mystical fo n#ation of a thorityD, 1cts of 'eligion, trans) M T aintance, 4o tle#&e, Re' Aor", !!) ;;=%;9= 7 rst, A), ;<<=, .errida vis-3-vis 4acan0 Interweaving deconstruction and ps%choanal%sis, Kor#ham University Press, Re' Aor") ?acan, J), 1991, +he Ither /i#e of Psychoanalysis, 5he se inar of 2acques 4acan, Boo! 6VII 7898-78:;, trans) 4) Eri&&, Un! blishe# man scri!t) ?acan, J), 199;, +he ethics of !sychoanalysis$ 19F9%196<, 5he Se inar of 2acques 4acan, Boo! VII, e# J%A Miller, trans) C) Porter, W)W) Rorton, Re' Aor") ?acan, J), ;<<1, B4a#io!honie1, Ecrits, !!) ><H%>>=, /e il, Prais) Meylahn, J)A), ;<1<, B7olistic re#em!tive !astoral ministry in the fra&mente# transit hall of e2istence1, )5S 5eologiese Studies<5heological Studies 66(1), Art)U>;6, 9 !a&es) CI*$1<)>1<;(hts)v66i1)>;6 Meylahn, J)A), ;<11a, B/ee"in& the &oo# (!eace) of the re! blic$ the violence a&ainst an# of #ifference in #efinin& the ! blic s!ace,1 Ver$u et Ecclesia H;(;), Art) UF<F, 1< !a&es) Coi$ 1<)>1<;(ve)vH;i;)F<F Meylahn, J)A), ;<11b, B4eli&ion an# mo#ernity in a sec lar city$ A ! blic theolo&y of #iffLrance,1 )5S 5eologiese Studies<5heological Studies 6@(H), Art)U961, =!a&es) Coi$1<)>1<;(hts)v6@iH)961 /har!, M), ;<<6, Jac, es ?acan, Internet Enc%clopedia of ,hilosoph%, vie'e# H< may ;<<9, from$ htt!$((''')ie!) tm)e# (1(lac'eb)htm) Qerhae&he, P), 1999, 4ove in a ti e of loneliness0 5hree essa%s on drive and desire, 4eb s Press, ?on#on) 5i6e", /), ;<<<, 5he =ragile a$solute > or, wh% is the Christian legac% worth fighting for?, Qerso, ?on#on) 5i6e", /), ;<<6a, A Plea for a ret rn of #iffLrance ('ith a minor !ro #omo s a), Critical Inquir% H; (Winter), ;;6%;>9) 5i6e", /), ;<<6b, BJac, es ?acan1s fo r #isco rses1, 4acan.co , vie'e# <; J ne ;<<9, from htt!$((''')lacan)com(:i:fo r)htm) 5i6e", /), ;<<@, +o'ar#s a materialist theolo&y, 1ngela!i0 2ournal of the 5heoretical hu anities, ;1$ 1, 19%;6

18

5i6e", /), ;<<=, In defense of lost causes, Qerso, ?on#on)

19