Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0DUWLQ*XVWDIVVRQ
If calculation and judgment are to answer the question Which way?, perfectionist thinking is a response to the ways being lost.
Stanley Cavell, Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome, 55
1. Introduction
In his thought-provoking exploration of Cavellian perfectionismwhich he
sees as identical with what Cavell himself prefers to call Emersonian perfectionismPaul Guyer quotes the following passage from Cities of Words:
Emersons writing, in demonstrating our lack of given means of making ourselves intelligible (to ourselves, to others), details the difficulties in the way of possessing those means, and demonstrates that they
are at hand. This thought, implying our need of invention and transformation, expresses two dominating themes of perfectionism.1
Guyer makes the following comment:
This remark might suggest that we need invention and transformation
in order to make ourselves intelligible, but I think Cavells larger point
is the converse, that we need to make ourselves intelligible in order
to realize our potential for invention and transformation and that the
latterin other words, the exercise of our freedomis the substantive
goal of moral perfectionism. (Examples of Perfectionism, 9)
In what follows, I am going to defend the reading that Guyer is rejecting in
this comment. That is, I am going to argue that, in the Cities of Words passage
Martin Gustafsson is a professor of philosophy at the Department of Philosophy, bo
Akademi University, Finland. His publications on Cavell include Perfect Pitch and
Austinian Examples: Cavell, McDowell, Wittgenstein, and the Philosophical Significance of Ordinary Language (Inquiry, 2005), and Familiar Words in Unfamiliar
Surroundings: Davidsons Malapropisms, Cavells Projections (International Journal
of Philosophical Studies, 2011). Together with Richard Srli, he is the editor of The Philosophy of J. L. Austin (2011).
Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 48, No. 3, Fall 2014
2014 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
7/22/14 9:48 AM
100Gustafsson
and elsewhere in Cavells writings, perfectionist invention or transformation figures precisely as what we need to go through so as to make ourselves
intelligible anew and is not to be thought of in terms of a kind of freedom
whose exercise presupposes that intelligibility has already been achieved.
Thus, I am also going to reject Guyers notion that Cavell is working with a
distinction between (1) intelligibility as a merely necessary or formal or epistemic requirement for perfectionist striving and (2) freedom as the substantive aim in self-perfection. It will also turn out, as a corollary of my reading,
that, for Cavell, perfectionist striving for intelligibility is not a mere prelude
or means to substantively moral action but is a sort of striving that is already
of genuine moral significance.
7/22/14 9:48 AM
7/22/14 9:48 AM
102Gustafsson
think of the achievement of intelligibility as merely a prelude to or a necessary condition for some more substantive goal. In fact, if my reading is
correct, unintelligibility is a necessary condition for Cavellian invention and
transformationfor such invention and transformation are responses to a
situation in which one senses the need for a better self and a better world
but is at the same time muddled about how the world and oneself need to
change in order to become better.
Now, this may seem like mere mystery mongering. How can a striving be
a genuine striving at all if the aim is not settled in advance and if there are
no given standards against which success can be measured? How can a goal
be a goal if it is clearly identified only when it is reached? In what remains of
this response, I shall try to further clarify and justify my reading by looking
closer at two central features of Cavellian perfectionism. The first is Cavells
insistence that a viable perfectionism needs to accept human finitudea
kind of acceptance he associates with Wittgensteins effort to return words
from their metaphysical to their everyday use (Cities of Words, 4). The second
feature is the role and importance of friendship in the perfectionist endeavor.
These two features of perfectionism are also discussed by Guyer, and I hope
that the nature and grounds for my disagreement with his reading of Cavell
will become clearer as my investigation of these matters goes along.
7/22/14 9:48 AM
7/22/14 9:48 AM
104Gustafsson
amounts to in a particular case is something we will have to get clear about
as we go along: as Emerson famously puts it in Self Reliance, No man yet
knows what it is, nor can, till that person has exhibited it.5 This, it seems to
me, makes the metaphor of the asymptote fundamentally misleading if we
want to understand what Cavellian perfectionism amounts to.
But then, what is it to say that the Cavellian perfectionist is striving for
something that cannot in any asymptotic sense be identified beforehand?
To get clearer about this, let us have a look at the second strand in Guyers
attempt to understand the imperfectionism in Cavells perfectionism. This
second strand comes to the fore in Guyers thoughtful and sensitive remarks
on why the topic of remarriage is such a central theme for Cavell. According
to Guyer, remarriage
is an emblem of one of the most fundamental ideas of [Cavells]
perfectionism: namely, that the attainment of self-knowledge and,
through self-knowledge, of the freedom for self-invention and selftransformation is never completed in a single moment, like an initial
wedding ceremony, or indeed ever completed at all, but is an ongoing,
life-long commitment. (Examples of Perfectionism, 11)
And again:
All marriage is really remarriage because it requires a continual process of trying to make oneself intelligible to oneself and ones spouse,
and not just a single renewal of vows in middle age ... , but a constant
process of bonding ... , a continuing effort at maintaining the friendship, the partnership that is marriage while each partner continues his
or her own self-invention, til death do them part, or they give up on
the marriage. And in this regard, marriage is exemplary of free action
in general. (ibid., 11)
Again, this is very sensitive to what I agree is an absolutely crucial element
in Cavells notion of perfectionism. But I also think that this element, if properly thought through, can be seen to stand in fundamental conflict with any
notion of the perfectionist endeavor as a matter of asymptotically getting
closer and closer but never fully attaining a certain ideal. Let me try to explain why.
I have already suggested that there is something slightly ludicrous about
saying that a certain marriage is approaching the ideal marriage asymptotically. Let me now try to spell out this suggestion in some more detail,
taking my departure from the Guyer passages just quoted. To begin with,
Guyer emphasizes the ongoing effort involved in marriage: the striving for
perfection here is not a matter of striving toward a certain state the achievement of which would mark the perfection of the relation. Contrast this with
a case where the asymptotic picture seems to fitsay, a case involving scientific idealization. For example, consider a case where our ideal is a com-
7/22/14 9:48 AM
7/22/14 9:48 AM
106Gustafsson
a mere means for pleasure. Different marriages may give enormously different concrete contents to this phrase, and the content given may also vary
over time with regard to one and the same marriage.
This observation fosters my suspicion of Guyers distinction between the
formal or epistemic aim of Cavellian perfectionismthat of making
oneself intelligibleand the so-called substantive aim, the exercise of ones
freedom. I do not think Cavell would want to say that the striving to make
oneself intelligible and the striving to exercise ones freedomin the sense
relevant herecan be thus distinguished, even notionally. From the sort of
perfectionist viewpoint he is exploring, there is no more substance to the
relevant notion of freedom than to the notion of intelligibility: to the extent
that making oneself intelligible and exercising ones freedom are central to
the perfectionist endeavor, they are equal and inseparable aspects whose
precise content in the particular case will have to be determined in the striving for perfection. To understand what it is to exercise ones freedom within
this particular marriage is part of what it is to make oneself intelligible to
oneself and to ones partner. The notion of freedom brings no special content
to the particular striving for perfection: the content of the endeavor always
remains to be given by the striving itself.
I want to relate this to another tension I find in Guyers discussion,
namely, his different attitudes to the idea that perfection is attainable. The
asymptotic conception clearly suggests that perfection is not attainable: we
can approach it, perhaps as closely as we might wish, but there will always
remain a distance between the real and the ideal. However, Guyer also emphasizes that what he conceives of as the Kantian and Cavellian goal of the
perfectionist strivingthe exercise of freedom, the freedom to be moral
is possible to achieve and that, to fulfill any duties, whether to oneself or
others ... one must not hold oneself to a standard of perfection that is unattainable for human beings (Examples of Perfectionism, 1415). On this
sort of picture, then, the point of perfectionism is not that perfection is, as
it were, constantly beyond our reach. It is, rather, that reaching perfection
is not something we do once and for all, but something we must strive to
achieve again and again (sometimes we succeed in this endeavor, sometimesperhaps very oftennot).
I think it is only the second, nonasymptotic conception of the attainability
of perfection that fits Cavellian perfectionism. So, according to Cavell, the
point about perfection is not that it refers to some ideal and unattainable
state of affairs: the state of affairs of the ideal marriage, for example. If
so, perfectionism would indeed be unreasonably demanding, asking people to strive toward a level of perfection that is, in principle, impossible to
reach. Instead, the relevant point about unattainability is only the one I
have already made: Perfection is precisely not a matter of striving toward
some perfect state or reaching some level of perfection. In any marriage,
7/22/14 9:48 AM
7/22/14 9:48 AM
108Gustafsson
their example matters in my own life (which is, of course, in many ways
quite different from theirs).
At the same time, it is important to Cavells conception that an exemplar transgresses my own present situation. The exemplar can function as
an exemplar of perfection only because it is transcendental with respect to
ones given subject position as defined by society (Cities of Words, 15455).
The crisis that gives rise to perfectionist longing and thought is the crisis of
someone who feels stopped or lost in his life, as if unfinished or paralyzed,
who is awaiting some form of omen or signal or experience that will free him
or show him a fate beyond the stance he has achieved in the world (ibid.,
389). That is why perfectionism requires the guidance or inspiration of an
other, where such guidance or inspiration does not amount to a demand
for imitation or mimicry (ibid., 209). Rather, as I said above, the relevant sort
of guidance counts on my own imaginative participation, whereby I make
sense of the exemplar as something that shows what it would be for me to
become my own true self.
This is why friendship is essential to the perfectionist endeavorfor a
friend, as Cavell uses the term, is precisely someone who can provide this
sort of help in a crisis of the kind I have described. In the Cities of Words
passage that I quoted at the beginning of section 1, Cavell mentions two
dominating themes of perfectionism, but I cut the passage before those two
themes were identified. The first theme is that the human self ... is always becoming, as on a journey, always partially in a further state (Cities of
Words, 26). The second theme is friendship. I shall now explore this second
theme a little further, once again in relation to Guyers discussion. Here is
what Guyer says about friendship:
[H]ere too I think we should think more in terms of a necessary rather than sufficient condition: intelligibility to self and others is what
makes friendship possible, but friendship, including that between a
man and a woman who have discovered the possibility of their (re)
marriage in the possibility of their genuine friendship, is itself a necessary condition for the self-invention and self-transformation of each.
Or at least self-invention and self-transformation are the products of
friendship as well as the conditions of the possibility of friendship.
But, in any case, friendship, like intelligibility, is only a formal rather
than substantive goal of morality: there is friendship among thieves,
after all, and not every friendship is morally significant, let alone the
aim of morality. Only that friendship that allows for as well as perhaps
depends on self-invention and self-transformation is morally significant friendship. (Examples of Perfectionism, 9)
There are two claims here that I would like to question. First, there is the
claim that intelligibility to self and others is what makes friendship possible. As I understand Cavells notion of friendship, this is not true. In fact,
7/22/14 9:48 AM
5. Conclusion
In this response, I have criticized the picture of Cavellian perfectionism drawn
by Guyer. According to Guyers picture, (1) intelligibility is a necessary condition for friendship, (2) intelligibility and friendship are only formal goals of
moral perfectionism, and (3) the realization of our capacities for transformation and inventionunderstood as free action of the sort that requires that
one understands what it is that one is trying to dois the substantive goal of
moral perfectionism. On the alternative reading that I have proposed, none
of these claims is true. To begin with (3), I have argued that what Cavell talks
about as invention and transformation are not to be identified with free
action in the sense explained by Guyer. Rather, invention and transformation
are processes the ends of which are not clearly understood in advance. Neither is intelligibility a necessary condition for friendshipso I reject (1). In
7/22/14 9:48 AM
110Gustafsson
fact, friendship in the Cavellian sense is most needed when we have not yet
managed to become intelligible to ourselves and to others, and such friendship is of great moral significance. Finally, I also reject (2): intelligibility is as
substantive a goal of perfectionism as you get, andto quote Cavellthe
friend is a figure that may occur as the goal of the journey but also as its
instigation and accompaniment (Cities of Words, 27).
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Stanley Cavell, Cities of Words: Pedagogical Letters on a Register of the Moral Life
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 26; quoted by Guyer in Examples of Perfectionism, 8. All further references to Cavells Cities of Words are
cited in the text.
It may, of course, be that Guyer would say that, in practice, these two steps are
often not as neatly separated temporally as this picture suggests, but it seems
to me that he must think of them, at least in principle, as distinguishable in the
envisaged fashion.
Stanley Cavell, Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome: The Constitution of Emersonian Perfectionism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 8. All further
references to this work are cited in the text.
I am alluding here to Nietzsches Schopenhauer as Educator (see his Untimely Meditations, trans. R. J. Hollingdale [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983],
129). For a discussion of Nietzsches perfectionism that has many affinities with
the view of perfectionism I am here ascribing to Cavell, see James Conant, Nietzsches Perfectionism: A Reading of Schopenhauer as Educator, in Nietzsches
Postmoralism: Essays on Nietzsches Prelude to Philosophys Future, ed. R. Schacht,
181257 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
R. W. Emerson, Essays, ed. E. H. L. Turpin (New York: Charles E. Merrill, 1907),
111.
7/22/14 9:48 AM