Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • (FELMAN, Shoshana CAVELL, Stanley BUTLER, Judith) The Scandal of Speaking Body PDF

    Uploaded by

    Nina Lemes
    10 views85 pages

    Original Title

    [FELMAN, Shoshana; CAVELL, Stanley; BUTLER, Judith] The scandal of speaking body.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views85 pages

    (FELMAN, Shoshana CAVELL, Stanley BUTLER, Judith) The Scandal of Speaking Body PDF

    Uploaded by

    Nina Lemes

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 85
    “Translated by Catherine Porter with a new Foreword by Seanley Cavell and Afterword by Judith Bueler Stanford Univenty Stonjird California THE SCANDAL OF THE SPEAKING BODY Don Juan with J. Austin, o Seduction in To Languages Shoshana Felman, | Sef Ue Pes ‘Sanford Clr (© 80 Bos da Sea Sale cers parti Don han dun oldie dee pe ‘gi asian © by Cornel Ue Pre x pate inthe USA by Capel Uy Fes 98 ‘here Ps, Forward Aco hae en prepared pi ie, sos by be Bond of Tae oe Tend Sed nie Unvsi ‘Alege Prise ithe ied Sates Aris nce unos ay pope, Ube of Congres Cao inn Daa én, Shodan, {Semtled rps gh) “Theva of hepa ly: Don Jun wih An rst npg Shoshana aed by ‘Caen ew sn aby Sly Corel o secre Boe, olny et ea ed ‘camel Unban Preah " Tae ogi tence dnd ‘Sn ontogyae halk pope) satya (he ik ped 1 Specs ani)" Teenie Pip) 4, Malte, e-i6 Don Jung Candy. Ate L Gob tanga Tle Sie Man (Sef at Jobat sean gil pring 203, fe in you he tining Type Janes 2 Bromaeria 9 Cram sn ier dy Contents Prfce 0 the New Bion Fear The Scandal of te Speaking Body ‘The Scandal of tbe Speaking Bady Preface: The Pomising Animal 1 Berween Linguistics ad Philosophy of angauge Theories of Promise, Promises Theory $2. ThePervenion of Promising: Don Jusn snd Licey Peformance 5) The Scandal of he Reformatine 5.4. Knowledge and Plesure or the Philosophers Performance (Pxychoaraljsisand she Perfrmative) Aferoont Nis Idee ro By af Preface to the New Edition Iki ete vo encounter one’s younger self and reicover ones on wing twenty-one yeas later The ese ofthis bok now ves anew vilty and @ new cucency to what appears me, in ezopact to be the bade, che most provoctine,but alo the mort playful teat chat Ihave ever writen. Speaking bodies (be they of profesor of plilosophers, of rychonalys, af writer orf read 5) commit terry speech acts that exceed al philosophical inten- Yias and all didactic purposes (ine inclu. This the perfor satire power oflangiage that ths Book acemprs dramatically at ce to read and ta enact o demonscrate pecs inthe ac. Je Auris theory ofthe performative wl hue serve a a key {or teading the theatrical performance, the seduction, and the speech acts of Molt Don juan Moras Dow Gesunni Bat ‘more importany ania sun, Moles Don aon wl iter an she an uncxpeced light on Austin's groundbreaking nin of| "doing things with worde” Prycoanabis in eum comes this the- arccalappoinement between philosophy and literature (berween ‘modesty and casi) by showing how speech always bring he body—the unconscious into play. The odd exchange Beoween Don Juan and Austin shows, shen, how appatety eoneepral the ‘ore in rr strive fr pleasure, play themselves xt betwee kaon ing and noc knowing, and ler thi wards be stung between pos bil and impossibly. Since Judith Butler and theese of performative im gener, x Profi te New Eton speck char continu playa cena and eng en the thaws say gender, efron was posts ‘ati and aera mcr The ees ois ok enn pte lay opal at more ad ore peopl ae dering yew ‘ova be pang boy oa ee ser one My rowan ied Th ida Cons Ti an Te tsb Teese Conny ede srg he peaking cy ae in coreoom ithe por of he king e deroth—the psn body esting in sly ep eg tht traf show fom mee dean ene tance phys tener fu, Facing the Commander Sze he speaking of Don ann tr end up conning Sich thar ofc feist rent in wc te and ak thse ea cle, abo give ccans wether “his bok ms orignal pied n rnc ino unde the tie Le Seda cr pon cine Esha apes inthe US in pune thee The Lito Spe ect {ida sh tor subi ie eae oa each ‘re, whose htm lee gis old ete mate or dar se ee ody that my coe with the Fen alc an ‘raha os mina. The wry oe rh ad ne Aa Jit Be piso nb Ard ha as lan re tin beteen French and Engh ws thc bc Ti ton ha thsercal msi of tandtnhapened ina bck bout tion tanto bewen contin Asn a Pare ech speaking and Englishes cts) andar been con tena psophy an analy psy enlaces the soe of php and eis, brea heel snd ‘he sharia The tie ofthe beak Sauron Ta Lae suger noon thease of cach and Eh {i thse ngage and al chee aus gen tanto ‘Tyebook appa now with ste rere lin the copay of wo ne ets which Fam to ara ana The Sanda of he Speaking Bahn gto Sale Cv ae huh Ber—evo oF the moa bilan, noncnforeiog, snd til edn phlsopb fo neering writen ae pening nd clog oma th we dion, Foreword to The Scandal of the Speaking Body aaa wl were, lies Sens.“ Snian Lande” Asone for whom the encounte with JL Assis writing and teaching almost half a encury ago was formative and remains in spitng say 2 once char Shoshana Felmani (laf serious) de- scription of Aus’ (eriouy peful) work as sandalous series meas acurate ro something of Astin own sense of it—alhough would achat his work also conveys dhe sease that it philoso phy’ own scandal tha what he says seems tobe, nee 1 ‘This compound of anudes has not always been lound endearing in profesional philosophy, which has meant that in hese circles ‘The Scandal ofthe Spang Body one of che met bilan ae acing and disusbing wore of ix pei, which appead in Ea lish tansacion in 984, during che furor over the teeption of s>- talled French chery in American leary and cultural studies has never found che fl adie of readers assumes and deserves, Bearing in mind Felman’ loation ofthe literary a he place whe plilosophy wth linguistics) is “iterogated but ali =. pushed beyond fis disciplinary limi” pT eff in wha Fallows sme ‘opening responses to her text which may be of sei locating t= ta ikely disciplinary point af esiance to er thongs and et line long which to use thee point co eter fet than ny knowledge, cy haves or ad ‘Sore: Tam gael o Richard Moan ad Bal Pre respons ‘ny ex ta red ipronemena in several pamages aii Formwork Fein ontinouy deie e a ofieret oghon she etngol es Hung wht she digi the prince fn of wee ding Aomin mayer ae has poet EG. Gctsaro ttt cen elaine’ fie Thoow fe epsee tater of len sso lng ine ted om te poty tamed sonic” plsoply-erapond team nfetel et om the ppd geo hiking of te tly pory unl “ab?” holy Sach tak Bi nga i sie phe i totes or sigs of loopy ming te conte al bt sorter other wf one re Stoop, Howat a ew elena er Thad bee ranch am ad ain ot ony ‘heaps tha dni cyte hea pct a Teno woth tebe wa eset ere fp wm ery ing poopy i an ‘ora fe ote apes ny etal ecto np (a Fea tae ol sche ie seuton rc on me by cain ‘Shai thea pegs pp eo teak ony pened and onaiuned my om promi: Par ther tavc en ony tbe unk oy own pes May tes aye, Bd i em pane eet my hope es ‘What Finan eal the "petformatve aspect” of Astin theory sis presentation ina tle of wring that essentally and insistent in- les jokes, pans iterary allusions, and the general epeated in- ‘ation co have fn in pilosopizing, 2a sease ics 0 wonder {hatin is philosophical inhertance—its performative aspect has rot only aot been appropriated, bus must be reed (par from ome private moments of enjyrent providing topics of chats afer ‘wor, like Austins bobby of asing pip) asplosphicly ely Tinpestnent. One might accordingly sy hat Felmars book is mo meant for philosophers who think hie way, bts on the concary, So to speak fic espons o Ans patice meant fer someone Foreword si area convince, for example, of Lacan's theoretical and poycho- Iogical acumen, ofthe pertinence of philosophy ad literature to cone anther, of the rer, but inaccuracy. of what Derrida had to say about Austin. imitation of this esponse tha (apar om the fics that it alto respon to the cis ofFelmans own perfor ‘mance) i neglects Felmanlssengch a eader of Lacan, so that, fone le than convinad by Laas let of aicuation chance ‘scaly in enaontng psychoanalysis that i confronting hi ea ing of Freud’ text) with philesopy and with theology and with lteraure—may want toy dem farther, prompted by th day snl surprises of pertinence in Felmaa’ estaposion of moments fF Lacan with, among thes, moment of Astin, "Take dhe dominating coup of Felman reading —the alignment ‘of Austins inventing ofthe performative urerance in Flew Do ‘Thing with Word withthe gute of Don Juana in Maite Dan Jay and in Monat and Da Pontes Don Gianni. This rie “Conjunction fords the mos illuminating Fame known co me 2apinst which to articulate widespread sense, and dain, thatthe fact and concept of promising isn just one moze among petor- tative unterances, thee ae caracteriaed by Asin in conte to ‘onsative utterance those defined as being re fal), bu chat, promising —even especially the promise to marry—is somnchow Drvleged in Ain view, naming a ie were the Tat of speech ‘tel This pevlgeis suggested in Austins major esay “Other Mins" where he compares“ know” with“ promise topping short of caiming tha knowing spective) and eval sald fut led when im How o Do Things with Word: Ari ene ‘peaking as ging one word aif an “I promixc™ impli ines very at of spech of nelly, asi were 2 condition of speech assch. (Kant held that" hin is suc King) But why des Feiman ake tha the wonderful connection with ‘Don Jus, the compulsive promise maker and promise breaker, shows Austin to bee Don Joan” (a phrare Felman ues repest= ‘edly of Aust) cater than showing Don Juan wo be Austins nen sigue forthe chaos aitnga socal or forge of Auscins ‘moniions? An answer that, appealing ro he moze familar eing, iy Fonewond in Don Giowonni, Don Giovani nemescs ae the “rious chat- sexes ofthe otherwise bus opera whereas Austin assigns to him self the jokey cn an otherwise mad word endlesytemped to promise breaking, mariage mocking be evading. git revoking, ex Batis ie noe worth uying to dtingis che lughsr—and dhe srtendan anieny cna it one wi ke Austin senses de bond ‘oF our words ap tobe looened bxyond understanding, fom the laughter cused in another who, lke Don jun, find the bond of tour word apt wo be tightened beyond soa, in cach ae deseo ing both abligation and please? ind epaton for Fan pein in acs body is speech arin aes p65), Missing the ebzc.. The jie mifir The cence af hob isismiiing p98) ‘Abody sha which enjoys inal Tha whi ens elf ony dah incon its exjapmen in aging manner (7 For whit we have in the dsavery of paychounlss ian encounter, sm exeaalenounter—en agpoiumene to which we at sway ced swicbarea dae duder us (8), ‘And her projects colored by ema like Gadel “That promise ich my body made you Tam poweses to full!” (p42). When Felman articulates elated thoughts in wach observations 25 "Like ‘Don Juan, Austin suspects his urn chat the promise wil noc be ep, the debt noc pai” (p. 46) and “I the capacity for mise is Aan inherent capacity of dhe perormative, tit because che act at sich ir defined, for Austin, tthe capaly to mist got and Juio be achieved 1 ein ancora” (p 35-58), abe 3 ‘ndestand her, fy explicly challenging Deeds viruletly influential reading of Aust ens of langusge as one precisely that fils to recognize the inkorent, sy internal possiblity of ies flues). chink Feliass perception of Austin ie move afl to his sense f things than Deeds on chis pong, but rune ite ‘own danger of denying xomething in Austin Freverd w have in mind Austin’s honor of using, noc say constructing, Some metapiyscaldacovery ar 3 caxmie eeste for anal chisel ing 2 nis exarplethac takes zemark of Euripides’ Hippy tus “My wong swore hut my ear aid no,” asa way out of esp ing a promise Austins pchaps falsely emembering Hippolys’ later behavior) le seems 20 harder to picrare Auris imagining someone using the idea of "the acta uch ie defined ae thee pacity wo mis its goal” ay an exes for having led ina given ie ‘odo the best one might have done under the Greamstances ‘Yee I share the deste i Flats mediation ro presere Ausi's ‘exe aginst actemper (nt only by philosophers) merely co pluck fiom ita technical resule with, lus alt philosophic linge ties Ausin doe sy (and do) he tings she says he sas and does de jas, makes pus, denties himself Old Har se offre works, oes words ae fod and theories a emuneratve, ete, I (or tothe exten hat) one el do, hat hie a eminent wy to rad Austin (alae, xpi nthe virwote deal ha Fl san’ super powersa a eader prompt her to), fel indeed that sway of reading him tha ignore his playful nase” are ignoring Something esenial wo his philosophical serourness, then if one finds oneself sometimes at ods withthe incerprecative morals Fel- ‘man draws fom her weadiag one will heeapo be commited 10 ccount other forthe desl and sata ofthe text ae has lame and shown tbe essential tit Here ae two examples. Fist, Felman notes that while “Austin doce not spe. x= lily. oF tiie in che pecially [peycho- lanl sense ‘of parapeatis,” Ye an see how his gap of the referencia pect. ofthe act in negative ems is clase 10 the Feuian concep of slip and paar, and othe Lacaan conespt of the dif referential” (p56). Bu just because | woud ke comparing Astin and Freud on the subject of slips to be an uncontovesally wel- come idea, do noe want i to extey the pie of having to accept ‘ontroversal shearer of reference (Beaver lingua pretation of Aust charactriation ofthe performative; Lacan's ‘ea of dhe real) —though ofcourse for Felman these are nor prices be revards. Thais nae something wan hex deny, but metey a Foreword ot to have ro count on. An Austiian “misfire” is nota Freudian slip, because it isn essentially morivatd, Yer Austin des inves sige lps: that fos dhe projec of his einevery of che ipo” ‘ance ofthe concep of excuses, sketched in his nots called "A Plea for Excuses.” Tete wha emerges is that, in conta ro Feud vi- son ofthe human beings 2 Bel of gifcance whose stins ox- preside meaning db we might cate be questioned about, “Austia’ vision i of the human being 38 eld of vulnerability ote scons imply wider consequences and elects and tele ‘fnarcower meaning— tha we shoal have tobe answerable fo. Sr chen of what ui isthe diffreace without the samen be ‘ween them? And the sameness hat todo with what igh be seen 28 yenion oF visions ofthe speaking by. Second noting chat Don Juni pestered about is failure to pay his secvans his wags, Felman adduces (46) Autti’ suggestion that his invokng notions fhe pesormative the ini and the Forces of urerances may sem lide wnremunertv” ad ies his ‘onerson “Wel, I ugposein some ways its uaremunerativ” Fe. rman takes hit allude to Ausine apparent rfl of linguistic ayo (namely ofhis inal aintion herweenconstative and per focmative, which thelinguise Benveniste wishes o preserve). With- tut denying this there seems to me plains, moe pertinent 4g _ressne cone to this nonchalase declaration, namely hat rather than offering remuneration in the coin philosophy reognies well —00 wellAustn is, om the conan deprvig pilsophy of fall ‘retin that coin, namely, in the don that he fll teaningl- nes of yore ied to utterances which ae tue ole, The the- ‘retical cols ofthe initial general dsineton between the per ormatve and the cnstsve i, seen 0, no a intllacl flare Dura signal sucess, showing the pesformatve (namely fren of ‘uence nie ru nor ils) tobe Fly as meaning a the con sie hus deprives postvsm gether with animpertan ain ‘of he iterary New Citi of Ast’ perio, 2x prompted inthe ‘work of L.A. Richards) of «place forthe imagined dilation bee "ween what was calla “motive meaning” as opposed to “engine (or cient) mean” Yc whe bue Shoshana Fea wow have Foreword a fend dot ach hug in tie finance? And ame pepe o db ta hee er hogs ine href Do eas cr aly sou ot cng ise xsi era bt ean acy eae wi ch arf Gn elton wth Dn us eee hat the ia il nxn ng an ry tea Ah teh wid ene ny gl ht stn wa ibgour mln we ite: pease ee om ae ‘mnide) ker dor may am des paige When for eanle, ean spes fw "un cts ‘aryl! fae fate an eof the ntemen” nd goes ono spk ofthe" xa of tea” "he real red of ening” (3) lard ts dcomine wht cis mean deny ota ht > ‘nt and peste dif inthe per of weving ne rol. Awe uh al de Man unl ek ile thc rly wb tht promates dom be What hare tg eet Ania achlenctheows St he dhs bee fo amp beng vaog ase that engi fer yo parca) oc hc og I ode snetig ay nem sao yon) th very i coy mars acon Gocaing Aste of eno Sanco os power—al toner pond to idem with efron, bat a facin of language al) treet ee mite expt tly rena Cigna bch opts Msi (io wl uss wih wat “lbenno ding) osha etapa Desi Shoo How» Dy Ting wit Wd eeing tbat pe fon Ain snes th autho perch Gabi me wes the psc neon fr ce ence of ec) yk I ot nl demining pte cy ole ing plying a) m noc” nce new ts Ubptge: Beds ped wpe Aa cel fe age int Gl doles ac hag ine the view of pro nati be hast anaunceds nay che carpe tae vie ai Porevend ‘mounts simply wo saying hat "To mat isto sya few words” or “Bering is simply saying something” (HT, p 7). Austin ad vene sibly conceded: "Such 1 cane sounds odd or even fppane at fist” and hess, “bu wih sufcen safest may become sot add ata.” Yer when, wo pugs ater, Ain gua against the sound of flippancy by declaring that “Surely the words must he spon seriously an s0 aco be take serovaly™ ccaes eat tat his seae quotes around “seriou,” far from helping to provide safeguards apinsflippane, ace symp that he hss, and knows Incas, sure away fom dhe founding question he has sed com ceming wht iti to ay something. ‘This i no dhe moment to ey to crace how Deri has deter- ‘mined that Anstn' cas deflected (wich save quotes) concession about seriousness, which in appearance is diceted to a posible (prejudicial or argumenstiv) formation of Austin oon theory or rather, this own prof by eximple, sot aament, ofthe isence of «common form of uterence that nies true aot fale, ad shat no one wil eall nonsense, which accordingly pro- poses direct and massive ron of countetecape to log pos inves proclamation of the nonsense, meaningless, of "valu judgments” (arteance held tobe sesly meaningless be- ‘ene nthe true nor flse)—is instead, i reality an atiunce- -ment by Austin of che nau of spech such? Buc even without an aecouat of Desdas determination, | think it canbe sid that ‘Austin a this ealypoin i is exposition had distracted himsell into hal-tared, routine glance a “serous” wheres every gesture of his philsophing canbe taken a cracking of ise se ‘ousnes. And be hs eidenly been drawn away fora asessing the signee of his demonstration tha ying something is do ing something —for example, ie proves a novel way of smgnng the seriousness ofan ueranes, arly hat an utterance without _pesfnmative (illocutionary x I wold ada, peslactionary force ays nothing isin tha Sense noe veious—and denon away pape fom ever considering that saying something i also nor simpy, jas exaetly, merely, quite, only, purely (what you might call) doing something (a point Austin takes note of on HT.) Foreword vic Agta, wien Flan as, wining, "To seduce ito proce fe leicous Language” (p- 1) one devoted eo Ati might wish to 1 ‘bx palling long face, "Wel, the quasiechn use of ecto Fashioned by Aus splies ony what emerges ae ocutonary ts (what is one in saying something), not wo petloconary aes (nha is done by saying something), and the qasi-erance se Ace you" ar its very naability play, i nt ilacatinary, hence i cannot be evaluated ether as Fico o ae inflicts,” Bat Fela formulation ass the question why Austin doesnot g0-0n wo artempe to deine fay forthe peloatonany, and | am indeed to her insistence for having helped eo prose, ia my own ‘sea continuing effet vo purse tha question, which ha meant, in fer, r follow my nein tat Austin's unchaaceii ot bust, shy ar ineodacing the disinion betwen ilocutonary and perlocuionary as, “For clearly any, of slmast any, pric ‘onary acs lable wo be bough of in safcienly peice ‘ances bythe sing, with o without calculation, of ny utterance whatsoever” (HT, po) sot wo be trusted. Mocutions, we might say can name wh they do (to sy I promis, bt we, sane,” 2c isto promise, wed, ete) peloestions cannot in chi way namic ‘what they do. IF aparently perlocuionay acs (uring deter, Punish, ars, amaze, diggs, see, delight, te. you") wece eo ‘p(s Austin likes sy) to dete, punt atm, dig, ec, eight you speech would essay over sn nsaveyabl eld, be a form of magic (sift were throughout thar fd st to unheard ten ineible music). While mayofe, or character alien for dlighe you inadverendy or accidental, edocs ot flow chat herefre canna that here ae nox way, call hem conditions of Fciy, I mgbe rear or discover in which to) alr or dlght you intial, Freszebly. (donor conesive chat Wallace Stevens has askew to consider his ratonais sombreoa the cover ec sively fey or of sombernest. Buewho wold ake chico mean ‘hac the Figures parcally out of ent) ‘An indication of what sean may be brought outa follows ‘Austin sys of performative urernces—or of locatianary ace, ‘which For hie trac pestrmasiviy when he resets the theoreti = Foreword ‘able of his sudy-—that the "T” coms esenilly into the picture (ven when th grammatical form ofthe uterance ie not explcily «aa in theft person). Thats a, have do my psn ing marrying bing, tc: moreover, no one ison the whole beter placed than eo determine whether I have (ito) promised, ‘mari, be, et, no one upon whom Ian pas af sy responsi bilities fr asessment here. Inthe cate of perlocutonay 4,08 the contrary, especially chose that tack what I ave come eo ell pasonate utterances ("You delight me” “inside you, et, you ae beter placed than Lo determine whether the act has been sccomplished indeed isis part ofthe eoitions of Fi of the (perlcutonay) at thar (here being no tanding conditions forts fect demand of yo to say (and shat you in fata, what accomplishment (Fit) has been, { mask this difrene between pexformative and psionate uence by saying tat wit the ter the "you" comes essentially into the picture, The perlocuonay is the il of human interaction which is not goneened bythe on. ‘ventions a conditions or ras Austin invokes, bu represents the ‘complementary field occupied by or elling oe improvisation and pasion and aggression, lithe regan Austin backs away fom in ‘backing away tom iverigaig the perocaionary. Takctch here this step beyond what Austin actually goes int, tut which simpli here, in onder to highlight Fema’ insight i invoking te wock of Antonin Artaud ("Evryshing thc acs is. If then, we loosen up ous ides of truth ad fly we sal ce thar tarcments, wen asessed in relition eo the fat ae ot 0 ry ifrene fel rom pieces of ave, warnings, ved and soon" (PP. p. a). ‘The original distinction berween performative and consative is ‘thus weakened, and indeed dsocted, Whats needed in it place, ‘Aust concludes, «genera theory of spech stay such, ‘Austin provides this geneal eheoy in his deine of locaton, Encomparing al broadening te conert ofthe performative, the “ilotonary at” is the spech performance examined with elec «enceto the conte ofthe incevioction, tothe concrete and con ‘weatona disanive station a which spexch acquis, above snl beyond its meaning a ceri force af were the frce of wat ing, commitment, plea, command, and soon) In his analyse of language, Austin thus distinguishes msoning and irc: che wo ae ‘ost always coexist inthe poditon af speech, He abel the pros Action of meaning a “cationary ac” and opposes this to the owes plays ofthe “illcutionary act” These two types of speech cs are both comiad, in azn, witha thie ype, clled “pric ‘onary acs,” consisting inthe production of efron the ner lheto (surprising convincing, deceiving, mileang and woo ‘Ths “he mid o me: ‘Shoot he? meaning by shot shoot andre fering by ther vo fer isalocuionary ac, “he urged fr advised ‘ordered, 8) me to shoot her” ean illoctionay aes “he per, Bevwcen Lingus and Philphy of Language 9 sud me soot or"he ge met orm me) shoe era prooninsy aE pp. 0-203). “The performative sch ke plae win a genera ductine oflloction and of munca fne, which Astin ‘ids ina ve enegoer 1 The toga ed (ce: ps acs tht on tthe cei oferta geting ennting ‘cating et) 2: The gry fake (ei: pec act tht conse scram ofan ote carci owe omaing ing one vain. vising pwning) 5. The exe of omnis Coin pec act chat con inthe fen ene with pert tir turscio proming, conaing espanol. wear ing bin "Th tg ofan babe: ech at ald so engin lpi in “Te cagy xpos pai pec ett cone si ina dncnive caren lbsing, denying quesonng sshing emailing se) (T1578). Emile Benveniste's Modifications: Feliciey and Legitimacy Rept the petanc ofthe cg ofthe pefomacve foc ling acl, Em Benen opposes the eadening of {his cate, and consequently sctes hil from the gee rl dacrine filostonay ace Wee rex fo snd Sng the dination ren the einer snd the costae Weblo ijn and ecm. Fane dr nha ree ter fa oma and ings ore, parla it te i ot afl vo dng bowen sce and eee one codanges the ery objec ef ara poopy the spell of langage in the creumaancs in which the chores ey avid" Seng out 9 prove amore preci dexsipron ofthe perfor- 10 Beswecn Linge and Pilsophy of Language mative from a suc inguiic tandpoint, Benveniste’ rita = sasesament of Austin’ theory earns ost t inelade—when we a> tempetw summarize it analyte uberacionsfexhsons) and four adltions(pecifcatons, definitional elements). ‘The thre suberacions, or excusionary moves, te presented in the farm of seondry methodological notes, bu in fx ty co state thre analyte principe 1. The exclusion of he general theory of illoatonary fre his serves safeguard the formal putty of the cnstaineperforma ‘ive opponon, 2. The elusion af he theory of fits or inflisies "enbapp- ese) of the performative: “We have taken.» only the most salient points of the line of reining and those arguments inthe demonstration wich touched pon Fits which ae propesy line ‘uit. Thus we (shall nor examine dhe consideration ofthe og ial ‘nappinese’ which ean ore and render inoperative e- ‘her typeof utterance” (Benveniste, . 233). Later on, discussing the “unhappines” of an unrealized performative, Benveniste Phin thar ch an utterance simply does noe ear at perforin tives thus eis excluded fom che extegory: “Anybody ca sur in the public quae, T decree a general mobilization, and a icant ‘bean as* because the equine authoiy icing uc an ter ances no more than wordt edoces tf to tle camo, hd Ishnes, or lunacy. 4 performative urterance that i mate act dos ot ei” (p. 236; Benveite'semphas’). 4. The exclusion ofcchésfrom the earcgry ofthe performative, "We are not ar all certain that che location ited above (F weliome pos apologize: 1 advise you t do i) can be piven as conclusive proof forthe notion of the performative. Atleast they are aot roof roday because soc life has made them so tite Since they have fallen to the rank of simple formulae, ehey mast be brought back other original sms in oder forthe so epain thee pet formative Function” (Benveniste, p.234)-"Thu its preferable ‘vod sudying prfornative ureraces that have fallen into disuse, thosewhose situational contexte no longer exist, and instead to choose “ptfocatve in fll we" (p33. BeswcenLinginis and Pibsophy of Language nt Having thus exuded from she category ofthe performative all clicks, failures, and those pesformatives thatthe general doctrine ‘ofllocuonary ac reat a implicit oe pervsive, Benveniste turn as four supplemental specifications tothe definition ofthe peforative: 1. Peformatieatnances are aly ac of nth of egiimate suthority (oe sure. "A performative utterance has existence ‘only asa act of authority. Now, acts of author ate fst and sways utterances made by those to witom the right toute them belongs. This condition of waldiny rated to the person making she uence and to che ciesmstanes ofthe utterance, must a waysbe considered met wien one dal with te performative. The ‘terion is here and no inthe choice of verbs" (p. 236), 2 Insofiras isan act, she porormatve tence as the propery of being wnigue. "cannot be produce excep in special cic Seances at one and only onetime, ar a definite dat and pee. Being an individual and histor ac, performative were os be repeated. Each reproduction sa new ac peso by some- ‘one whois qualified. Otherwise, the reproduction ofthe pf. smatire urerance by someone ele necesaiy transforms i nto onsaive ute” (p36), 3. The performative sdfned by singular propery he of being sof ere freeing vo ele thai cones ial. eis sconce inguistc manifestation and a el fact “The ace hue ‘dentcal with the utterance ofthe act. The signified is identical 0 the ferent. The utterance dat takes el ferent sine deed elfen (p 236). “4 The performative tents an aco naming te act peared, and its agent. "An ueerance performative in that ie denominates the acs performed... Hence a pesfrmativ were mus ane the spe perfonmance a well aie performer... The uterance i the act the one who pronounces i performs the atin denamina- ing ie (p37: Benveniste empha). By adding hose for rite, chose fo formal specications, 10 performative theory, Benveniste eafBims and reinstates the desi sive oppotion heeweenconsaive and performative. rs $2 ‘The Perversion of Promisin Don Juan and Literary Performance «Fundam the n feci is thee cf iene hein Yon ite mine ‘What ange folk pp en ho cin denieneoea mp Pao, Te Span ‘The Don Juan Conflict and Mlocutionary Forces of Commitment ‘With the excepcion ofthe end chat, of the supernatural com ‘asin, the acti of Malte’ Don uns made up caine of esfrmative events: language set of hich the face of utterance ‘ould be appropriately described in erms ofthe fe loctionay ses Austiadtingushew 1, Verditve pesformasves, or execites of judgment (accom- plied throughou the pay by Don Juans antagons), 2. Imperative pefoumaties, or exis of power (Do Juan to Seanareles 3. Promissory perfonmaives,o exerci ofthe at of promising (Don Juan the women): 4: Behavioral performatives and pésfoematves of soca ua, ‘exercises of poieness (Don Jaa to Monsiue Dimanche)s 5. Fesformatives of exposition and argumentation Sganarclle to on Juan. be illcuionay face deployed by Don Juan is abve al eh ‘of promising, the one that his antagonics and pursuers un son the ether hand, a fore of threat or warning, Now theca, too, ‘he Prenion of Pring 5 stu sr of nea promi! if promising contin commit- tng once dowomcthing isonet, sl, ee ing comin coming cl to de ching print ome te, Aug te mening ofthe pric Goveand acing) i ove fees fo ha ofthe thet (wrege ane psn the fre bend bh the same, The conf hat opposes Do Jan ois purer hs openers pine tet eg the promi rig om Don an fev erp poste pro, br dope poi oto ale pans re {oy he promi. Don uns tne a ao pre ing Bh par of th rome (athe he pdx Newche st fring 1) revelers in the fae tht he promi oe Bh partite ne ras Senge ns the play inf ppc, al rosa snag te Rese amet as nbc Clg a the xg ofcmmion rie win th lactone of conc arth th donate opto Sheth pay itso” promise in ean srt drama within the ria st nara eae an inherent debisence. Opposing Views of Language Ifthe nents ofthe opposing fs cade he poe toons however bc the rine ides pee fom ac of commimenchar dieing cones of langage What ise at sae inthe lathe rel entice in fac the op- positon berween ro ws of anguag, on ht sega {Sowa and ance tae pefrveAcing theca tive view wich characterizes Do ja antagonists langage ran nse fori mah hat ga intra ment of knowl, a mea of owing aly Tu lation (ffs gun ce ins genera way, beeen language andthe ety represents itor gre man an teal abl leg evn noneticle nthe word of Gn whee one . The Person af Promising iene, indeed, lnguage osignaes, Thus incarating che author- ig of eh, God, or the “vice of Heaven” (hats the Fact that ‘God speaks), underwrits the authocty of langage ssa cogive fnerument. La his view the sole Santi reserved fr languages the consti Function: whae ia aiken an uteranee ia ico spondence—or lack of comespandence —to its rea teerent that {cs ath or isi. Indeed, determining the degree of ruth ofality of Don Juans ‘extents seems o be the chi preoccupation ofthe charac i ‘he play. "I dont now if you eng the tah or not saya Chae, et). “Is what you sy rely ue" Don Las la Y,. the ewo Wormen in ‘reantorrt: No, no, weave to kaow he uth marwunins: Wehae tose shi I, ‘This show the question of knowing i confsed withthe que of udgings the illecutionary at of judgoene is eerienced or 4 pure consaive o cognitie fo. However sis may be, Don Juan does no size such a view of language. Siying, for him, is inno cate tantamount wo knwwing, bbc rather o dong ating om the iterlocator,aodifing chest ation andthe ineplay of forces within it. Language for Don Joan, i performative and no infacative: ii ikl of enjoyment ob knowledge. As uch, ic cannot be qualified ast ofl but rather quite specially afin o nfliieny, success succes Linguistic Felicity I we consider the py in ses of success ofl, ii no se Keouledg and Plesare act, Asi inion ed slot cathin ork doch Spies No mae an aa espe oes ngage a ego secon anges gee qc roe lint hang eno wring Ba hn wing el on of ied 8 py eo etter stl yon he be ee Shae sel ie bene ee tran pay ro el fs de fm rtd ne syometiay ee intra smcdsm Sn ine Mie te otune ‘Theoretical Coincidences, or the Missed Encounter becween Languages ‘re nue among ari hing ch man a of ‘canbe tats hy aloe ein ‘even dhe al dept hae hgh er aca," Dek Lng? Wh ech i fede “Ried nox Eg” Alen ply hoc? oa ed Gc Lense eating Gan Bewnenpchosan (pty nt Lacan vein) and esfrmaie tory (resi in ks Asn vein) thee ‘shen, on thecal ps wha might be deed athe esa tides ee oe id" ‘pail geomeral owo spingel figura) and tempor fr (to senescent tht ope ee though converge of cumannc dae pte chan) Inf beeen theo thes ich ae oo ei co) ttm histor or cumtan aan the wo ‘herein nee mena ar ms ter sb ‘ts nuene. The cone fue of hi hie ees, ine since Kole and Please ” Psychoanalysis reaches us, howees, char coincidences, inthe is tory of the subject, are governed not hy chance bat by anotber Kid tf ogi, spesifially shat of he unconscious. Would the same ching, fot hold tue forthe ore history of dea? Might no the history tf though el be governed ia its eum bya logic ofthe analtic ‘pes of which “considences” would be both ympoms and sigs? “Tsay thar there te theoreti coincidences beeween Lacan and Aan to sy that something happen, in he history of thought, between Languages, betwen ng ‘Berwcen tongue: berween bodies. Fr iflanguages are rongues, tongues ar bodies —and as bodies they are deaf, and foreign co tach other. One canbe telated into another, bus they ae in ‘inscally incapable of bearing, of wndetanding, one anater. "Tis 2 fac” Lacan says “tha lngsaes [les langues) —I write this Thengue—can extend teres 10 be trasaed one int anther, ‘but cht the only knowledge emans knowledge of languages. The reaionship is pt craslced in fc” ("Vers un signifiant noavean,” p.13-10) "IF Thave wed the expresion: che unconscious i srue- fore like a nguage itis Bite T wish to maintain that an uage is ot language There something in dengue tat i. ready too gene, 00 logical." “Asin and Lacan are oth products of their respective In guages, Eich works with, and taker ineo account, che concrete Funtioning of hi own language. Tha isto say that hey are bo feof the aouledge of their oven lingua: [Now performative knowledge of language is uncransatabe. As evidence of tie we may take be dficulties—and the misupder- seanding.—oF Lace dzcouse in Anglo-Sacon ounces like the {ifialties~and the misundertandings-—that Aust’ text as “encountered in French-speaking counties. The French-English em ‘ounter at Ropaumanton the eubject of Anglo Sato "analytic hi Tesi an enone tha was cenered on the theo research ‘of Austin and hs colleagues, conse, in this sens, a spetacu- lar and symptomatic exemple of the impenetbiliy of linguistic rmentlits ofthe radsl hereronomy of the way of thinking de 6 Kowledge and Panare rid nua ain ch” i en {2 te very splot the sje alte whe Engl pio ph and ethylene ft spon nod find poo of thing erento ew canbe, ome noon alge of ted uta exp seat ‘ion the mirandonnding betwen languages Freed French ojos 4 wn php an iin or pomoatn? mee sng "hs oer ae he pro tht ta ea one ‘np fev i nti oto pg sibel that en in Ondo aly repre (Warnock rans. p. 4) Pomme a. hnnsinac: Tate the imprint she ose ge curio tgund anu ne pap who se Eg oe wise hae wey ieee hr own hapage wih tun coven awd ene et este and be putin Engi" TCR ys 20 mane le. ey iin ah in is cpio psd a sy ely onl he paren pay Eagah shops ovialy hes sole gt beanies ‘hat apeningdowle When wee ech the ese ‘onset pl and nc ey bones nc Shin tha hee ae ay comin whe oe i tet in yout pip A Iason ae ‘mead he cone op GRR: Lam nthe or ng econ ee + seu ores. grog neal. On the one hand semsw me the Eng hare ge ne si tenon for bebe ht they ice of nay of the things for which hy have en eae oan pes a ne nici = One aon deny omc Engh a {cern sry towel win happenin perp thee ‘icv Ani wae solr en wa coed ‘sino wonder wat tarred on tet Maer wy of conering of pp gr wot ying Kole and Plssire a hinds tha the Engl el nly nas with ed othe under tings of Hesdepger [hin hae wo undentand wha pening. we have wo ack wih Me Asti wn dexarations, rting inthe eon th she bung Heck a were, the Engl ppl hve nox ye each he oie whee hy co saye-and pth. they tlie ndie by mate eae _gite at hs pony for what reso summed pin simple fel gener oul doy hk hae hey ink nd conden ‘ingly so any oer concpion of piomphy [CR p. 369-701 Ifthe French objection articulate he discordance benvee i= ute meneaites, the lack of understanding ot the minder anding beewoen languages, Austins responses —chrough thet ‘ppiilly Engl himor--boc engage and sudan encounter of confrontation wich the reach questioning, and thus arcu in turn, in their Donjsnian fasion, the gap oF the nonenntrone- tion indeed the mie encnaer betwen Bagh nd French ‘Why shuld we be upied athe tance hn apne ei fat dat we have, 08 bh sides, ou fer on different ground 1 do ot think enol be is ny hat we pss most our ine seginacing anyone eal. But spp that we nigh be coe of thesin of er going peop nthe tet gant you that isa mee trou ack of politeness in cern ete than a dee provsetion, (One uy pled seni dreumatances we ar 00 by Let meal that afr equal go, we aleady hase our hand Falk". Ifwe area mvement, rie ae thought 10 be a di ‘wend indy php i uel bocase me have ome tb Hee ne doube wrongly dat ut mot imedate colleague ate dhe ‘onl ones with whom ci worth our wil ro are openly. ‘So fw ae reponched Gro ncepcedrpetnence, andr ont manor of signa ope wt ypesring 9. "A rowsand panons, but oe i ying and ie eso short™ (CR pp 37=73, “Thu the rene English encounter at Royaumont males nah ing quite so explicate mised encounter between languages. ‘This inducible gap oe nonsnfonation becween diflesent agus e Knowledge and Plscare ‘mentale this way languages have of “hot gresing each hein the ste” even chough they may nod, of confronting without mee. ing. ie also expressed, and just as expliity, in another context of ‘confrontation berween Hench and Anglo-Saton thought.» eon fonation in which, once again, Aasisian they isa wake eis by means of fton on chi noncanfonation tha Join Re Seale, ‘Austins mos famous Amercan “disp” inf ints hse. iy’ to the Decide etgueof performative theory. would bea mistake, tink reped Den cso of Austin 1 conkontain beveen eve prominent pilwopial tains ‘Ths sors much bease Dea ar led dic the ete ‘theses in Austin coy of language but eater beat he his mi eso und mista Aust poton a sre cuca point Shalt sho nd this se eomfntton nee quia place 1 should ay ash use chat I no fnd hi arpuments Yer ‘deat and ipsa ay a mista i a pron ‘2 Teli be bs sine Aactin™ ‘The fic that in what follows Seale indeed mine « numberof Derridean arguments” only further enim the basi noneon- fometion, che innscally missed encounter ot che inherent mis understanding berwcen languages 1, eherefore, the eonftotationberwoon Engl and Preach has ‘nor ealy taken place, the ineent nonrdationship between lan- ages, the nonemfoniaton ~ae ea on the subject ofthe peso tative Aas realy ten playa an events in the history of ideas, there are theoretical coincidences, then, berwoen Austin and aca, these coincidences nt only ex inthe deen of hse infueace; bu, what is mors they exist on the fr side of 3 gap or lingusic apis: he thecetilmeition aes shape herein spite of and aro che inherent nonlin of Els and French In ic if ‘Lacan and Austin— with the same tse fr paradox andthe sme selEaubvertng consciousness of leach, a every pin in knowl. scge—are concerned with the same thing they explore this object ‘only within the respective —and divergent gaits of their own Knoledg ad Plsare 6 Sen nin tel ed prea pa Repth puny erie eee ero ea Fel eda na pera rr in tht poss fom ths heal nncaton th ord error eee ere ere iin opens Se era eee eee cra Sa eeneeeetae ‘in so far asit is essentially the missed encounter..." (FG p. 55)? ee ee Sg ree aa peer iat eracrane perp Preece ees aneraeeea ee eee eas Recent eee aeeieoas ee ae Sareea reer ers Se eee Place rename areiar metres epee cee ates eee foc os ee Re or arenes eee Sees cece ae somite ely sont See ee eerie ir cceetlny el eee esenerce eces ee 6¢ Kawwledge and Plsare ‘ounce between languages, iti because their theoreti thoughts ill, abore al Linguistic ace And, although the linguistic body ofthc especie a remains ia fcr nana the theoreti ‘eincidencesberwecn there ike place nonetheless athe vy point ‘where ac are arcalaed with langage where «theory of acs though wibia and through langage thar consis an ac. Between Body and Language, os, What Isan Act? Both rychoumlyis and performative tony have infact shee objet the thinking of de human ac. "Mani pital animal," 2 Astle said already defining man by the very specify of his sc But twas iewsche,chaaeeizing man noe se "politcal an- imal” bac asa promising animal which is ofcourse, No without ‘eatin tothe “political animal"), who defined what ie hurnan more specifically not by acs but by spec at and not spy by speech ats but by the essenally parndonical and problematic na te of the speech act “I (that) not man true problem” We ‘may ay thar prychoanalysis and performative analy as modern ‘theories both rethink, each nits own particular fon, wat the psig from Arise vo Niasche implies. “Several times,” Mallarme wes, “s Comrade came, the same, that other, to confide rome the need 0 ats. what did he mean exact?" “To uncench oes iss in a breach of the senscy dca, for a prancing face-to-face with he dea, aa desires a ones: ‘he penenion se ie gad bythe concern for eaages ingtny bo 1... sito, vitor, understand you, philip dcr many mavemen ta get ou i ute feng the on te i es, the te ou exo which ae ies mele ‘Be ouges sue. determine Freese dct any wh sever conic by sve at bay apis isl paper fort mia, without ees {comesevunecent, nor lt inst! ea lia ome vehement ond es gesure ta you ough.” ovodge and Please 6s “Tough is opposion vo pure movement, the act Malm sug ger here, what err ar: Now there ate notices witht Tangage: the act lee ar uch that ae a ei of fet only within a ante in which scribed Thee ih sere on tee: "Your ac aye appli ilo paper” ‘Ther no ae wihout nga nein “Tht wba bh poychounatas and pefoatv theory have plex problematic of eu hen. then, domes’ conde? When eee peta? in general che station i one where someone is aad of having donesoating which. -uatonl, peiaps he was und sorehndynfence«:iemay hare been iy acide, o an unintentional ip. PP pp. 75-76 As phasis) [Necerery eres apt wth every verb. and his prods uo with ‘one mein finding some cain nto the rast sey Paton: Ie cls ther acon 1 the patil seton of Sedan which cach abl, hi soul ign them i pase in some del ofthe machinery of ein. [PP 1] Not only do the linguistic qustons Austin teats always boeder on aati questions, bt the lings brerection he makes al ‘ray scr 0 proceed fom an analytic intuition tha is noe spl ‘nt, sich athe observation of he fet thatthe verb ean shares tithe verb "Laow” the ingintic anomaly of having no continu 7 Knowledge ad Pleure present tens (we can ay “kaon” "can" bur we cannot say “Lam knowing” as we would say "Tarn walking’, anc more ger rally, she analysis showing throug che grammar" oe te ins {uli ichavior—of an the permanence of ints and conditions, ‘hus of dhe uma apitude fr fase a demontation hr am ‘guige ofthe "eatonal belief [that human ably oe power ‘or cacy is inherently lable ott produce succes (P, p28), Another linguistic observation tt eens ta proceed fom pyc ‘anal nmin (from a asta) i the one hat consists for ‘example in pointing ou thatthe adver "inadverteay” has no real sntonym in English: "We should be asking curses sich questions a why there sno use fo the adver advertent-» Ain, there iso se for ‘advert’ atthe selva idverenly" (PP, 1p. 192-95; Austin's exphasin, fhe theory ofilloction stds the ac in elation ots inten ‘iomal context intentionality ie ike hat fro which arse uch ‘expressions, indeed, as “inadvertent,” of unwitting” “sponta ‘ncousl “impulsively” [P2 . so) soften suid a ering nthe from adsconinuiy fom a break it intention, Inicaton, foe Austin, is scarcely present oll, earcey comin: ‘Whateetam eing eing oe. anit acipound of tw nacre) ate thing lic rain one le thle anne, “Toe isso del feo in acre iy af ne onc ans by mene a wn ene Tp ahs ‘i pl Ach we ae han fy en of wh in ding aap desi we hes pone nch ona ait wes mics ep ‘or fend hich ie say jut send fo ‘lng itn pel tae ean prec ese ‘heentan soft toni se Fe ey rele Ss tarbeunton avy ini nse ae serenely bch Ocean al et ‘ede sharia a inci bt pape ‘tn oes or else, fe hn empl) Koouledge and Please n ‘One may sy than his ragment Austin dheorercly posits the unconscious. However, coscionmes ofthe sncensious doesnot Constitute, fr Asin, a these oa eeoretial statement, but rabet {oct of play of ight with shadow" "Thave no conception of the sword” Lacan sy, “ba haves" ("Le Symprdme"p. 48, For Asin fr Lacan, the fnpor ofthe unconscious or ofthe shadow lef by de miner amp —is communicated not by 2 "on ception ut, aboveal, bya syle Erotics and Linguistic Philosophy, cof the Feast of Language boyish ih sia il ou Te which ap a ol hgh epemting i epyene inatigniingceonc “according to scent discouns,” writes Roland Barthes, “or sscerain discourse of tcience—lenowkage sa statement in write ing, in ieanwterance (ume duociaton): “The sateen, the ai obj fing, gen asthe product of the uber absence. The uterance by exposing he subject place tnd enegy, re is ency (wich ths bene, Fea on ‘he ery wait f language ackoowleging chat ange a mene alo of mpliciony of fle, of econ of ts eur ae Arges. Words aren lager concede a imple tea Its they ate ev at projections explosions ibatins, ds, avons. Writing mes Enodis “Toread Atsin is tee o ated a fs of knowlege Carried out joyously” (Cp. 378), sec “plesing” (7, pa) “ying” HT, po), sometimes “exaratng i Aatn is conanly having good time “We pride our “ives on hing und an aang acspation fom whic we ink tre can profi” he nid at Roya (Rp. 372). But since rat {eas repeatedly called into quinn snc nthe ast ana owes untemunerative” (Pp. 35) and theory ies pa, n Knuledge and Ploe dos ot pay “he wages" che gal of knowledge is above al che favosesjyisen i proces Gills mene prep oi some amc! Gage spend | mit dana Io mi voghio dive ‘The ucerance of knowledge, no longer cnstative but performs tive. iso longer so much the objec of contemplation, but of em Jyment. Knowledge, in other words io lnget wat isto be en ina rproenaton a specacle: its what sto be tated afro Fnnguage. As Barthes wie: ‘tinge und wbteer wots have Havre Freeh words for fan Leer and fe (rave these Latin), CCaronsi ule ya in coking tings shoul have thee of what are Whee knowledge concen ings mse ye tobecome wath ar. ave that ation hele of ors Te is this te of won which makes knowl profaund fund. ar pp 35-361 “To read Austins not simply wo attend a linguist east eis wo be repeatedly ined to one se pice, manga con 437 Don Giovanni 9 Dana hin in Mona's ope jus ike “Molitte’s Don Juan: es (0b, sey Monsieur Dimance, wl you et wih me? (i. Similar, Austin conan invites hs reader o it ites to taste the favor of words oe the savor of endo partipte in the far inte pleasuze or the enjoyment ofthe ease Much, of oun, f the amuemen and fe nso, comes in ening econ ofthe mlrogle, in hounding dwn the mint, snd t ths cin dono more hee san inte you But Tee ot Suhjot sey hai ha ong fled ne wht pias a en Kowslede and Pease ” ‘hough and mae, baen ofthe fn of dave, he pera af oapetion aod the ution of reaching apeemen (2. 3] ‘THiss bound eo be aie. ry. dig... Tee w my ead este el fin of eying iin pila (AT 2 fx not? Lacan as “his ambipucy oich ha inerpre thon plays upon which pte he symptom ina cca elation wih espn. shade gus that ete | Grouch wollte ide ialway the ne to which a= | pw cnc be secave the fan” Le Symp,” p 39). Fem ose wo semantic ingredient de one hand pau acd nthe oer amusement or enjoyment of play. can ave tp in ‘ations ot comotatons: ha ofthe pleasure of laughter (he | leant of playing aol) and that of te plete of enjoyment {de plesur of eo ple) —to which th word “un” can in some tae cuphemisal ora undesatemene The please of plying the pleut of enjoying adic humoros eonnaation dor ance conoration, 1c goes without saying hata connotation of ahr, the | fon hans Tound nay in Asis ye Bat hat sot 2h bitin compotion? Can we speak her, wits Don Juan, fhe eric of Asi’ language es? Inf, srogh its igure of spec, trough he sag fe ssonanecs and cough adic energy, che Asian ternce— eine bine ceases op it play-—t put aaa | ania aos ways he seen connotation. Fie fl inthe xt ply ofthe performance of tiching, ha is ofthe iavaton roche fat dhe ps of ee who ke Don Jan iit ot for of br fr pleasure and who, again ike Dan Juan does ot simpy wo have peste baw grt 0 othe w hae bth the plese be dese—of agg ata ing tht es dhs ot ob do and nso mach ine to | bands nt deieand 0 einen an we lation tothe oter i sbove all ation of ncation and of exaion "Toth can do na morc hr tha ace you (PP p75 ” Knowledge and Plenae ow widespread i infle?.. Wel scems ear tha hough tbat etd wr fled xt) in cnnerion it ere et inf ian il a which all ese hie BT ph "Assis empha {Like Don Juan, Austin deaws upon a ther of seduction, a sategy that uses speech at of soliciation: teaching ke love, bes ‘comes performance of promising an ae of commitment (a com ‘isin an pou!) that indeed engage desie and pleasure, el sty hg i a pring ee ha he of excuses. (PP, p. 184] “ “The a res wy ian emit maa (PP, p80) ~ " Astin teaching ial teaching of dese: the performance — forthe ensetment—ofa theory of dese that secke above all ‘communicate the desir ofthe theory, Ici hardly astonishing, then, f che new tols of performative theory subsite for che advo philosophical cite of ath the eters of desire themselves—"satseton” ot lack of sisi. Son, failure o succes, Tlic” "inflicy.” “ober isnos. merely w ute the woe" someone might dosiscll ight and yee might mt agree ha he ad in _maedelin being Tsay ounce this we are oly fo x “imple co ounce oe ber fie the ac one Besides the tern ofthe word of te ole prtarmati «god san ate hinge fave. tobe ight itweare to bed a have bap bog fone acon. What these ate we may hope 10 ccc by cali \ypesof sin which something gon arog” andthe eri ee fara es ove extent fee th tect, ayy, to inded fale Bu in geet wxbapp And fr this ago we eal. ‘he doin a he bing hr con band garg the cen of the ffi. ey bat the same tne of cue ope, het these neesary condion 0 be sified wl ke you as obvi UWP. pp sig “Ain erp Koledge and Plenure ‘Peafrving ction then, a actions. wll e sujet certain ole dimesom of wtf to which al stons sera jest Ep a Don Jus, to, i concerned withthe problematic of tfc: ian,” which specie wba he doe nas give eventhough he does sive plese. "His tent conn satis as" eas Don Carls (V, | Gilsand Don Joan "Ala! Wih ll my hear T should like wo give you the saison you desi but Heaven i agains it. (VY, Ti Is precisely because he has not given (and has nox had) satis: facion that Don Juan must de “Arlt by his death everyone i asd. La che only one who x unhappy... My wages, my sexes, ny wage!” (Vv) To eliminate Don Juan iso eiminate the bck of stsfaction —oe nearly 20, Tied, noe jut his ako xisation —hic unified de sie—that is dearazzed by the figure offre the ise which, ater having metaphorically consumed Don Juan during his life Cthe iors. 10 which dhe fre of ty bind youth has brought me" [il exds op erally ling hi? "Ob Heaven! Whar do [fel -An invisible ie is buring me,_.. and my whole body ie becom nga bed of faming coal (Vv. ‘Carey, hi “ie™—an incongruous parccpant a Don Jue | inncr—aeo appear at Austin's fent of langage. The meaphor ‘offi appear at onc in the terninologcl choles oF heoret- fea vocabulary (onefir) in his choice of examples, and even a the very ear of his absually speculative reflection. Now aught ‘not ti thetorealpreilcrion for che fg of ie ee ek, hee tn, a in Motte play, co problematis of desire and of es Todo tal, 3 (metaphoric thought of he (performative cent effects ofthe (pes) act or of (ese) ie? ‘Al othrough le... Ln gener aby ave an ider—some ie, ry iden picture, potion oF coneeption—of wha Tm up. shee im engaged in, what Im abot, o in general wt Tin do Ing oe ha dong bo hese teint ft ack [P, p85 “Ri pass) 76 Knowledge and Please Kamoldge and Please 7 Few exis pes euro comply the see xa. pin ‘nyo ofthis the fiying pan (Pp. 75 “Aut pa Eo an sremneber tive a Eide agrees chem nti Seer Bt ee iiner eee ee “tis by playing in this way on implicit sexual content or erotic res dis tcme'Whavome ngs ed te i et Fe ee inde Jelena el cient Ben ee tae CT meaning and reference” licentousconfsion that he pro- © duces for both che theoretical seduction and the theoretical edie ae he play on the example of mariage is pursued throughout 2 se lon oft bod wi rig o esatf he Seen at cet a eee eee a a arte bane? Nowra ii imposible tae an oversimplified may ys rm te benion with hing nd sh ule ng leroy es commonly engined ren nth em ep tines weil rhe mp ofthe vla Wee opin snacton«.a9 aempliaony, gound lee! desepcin scx notice even th moe pte pons diese ‘oe than wei those ged pnd whe ees ee hing or ee Pp 18-79 “hss Pose) ‘Thus Austin sina way lke Meracins, someone who thinks bout ire, thinks abou oe andes beeen ting end een Now: precisy inthis undecidabiity i located the concep of he performative, the conceptual novel’ of those events of desi cle speech acsx—iich do "things with “words and through which symbolic ie tab in the rea ‘The Last Word of Scandal IF the peformaive in fc, an evens—a ilo desi, should we be spied ole hat performative dee alway takes as its mod, sol, the symbols fsx desi Tes soy inte Don Juan nyt its in Asin tha te spec ti ‘moc ona metaphor he “pecorance™ of th sexu Tego wih the fc (vith he ino he fa hat the fest ample of speech at Ati propos (ly isa of ae age Now in exphining she performative by she elie pe formance fan act (as oppsel the simple statement spon ‘ofthe ac), Austin has quoting 0 the consummate sch tha speily camping: by equating in is vy he manages oevoke— th lsh greater esonance and ll ‘heme fn) —the dimension of ple ht kon she ae se bor “en deve mi a aig) Se a soot ep Ei ceil mtd eS hr To a ig i wit fi hit a Fae ee ee een ng a eng tte ce by ede etn peal nv yn Re Stee eget SERGE Sida ap es a opi he tering af th setae isthe ding fa action, “Thi fr fom being as parol a it may sound oa have manta ying mate tan " Keoledg nd Pleasure Boolean algebra, ost theory, is ehussubstiuted, in Aust case, for Don Juan's arithmetic ("Two and two are four, Sgana- rele) in comment bere again, o the very principe of bigamy, ‘ofthe lacks or “inflce®” ofthe mariage performance. "Thus ite especaly with epee cole, with respect fa co of perforssanes, chat Aurtin play onthe sexual eoanotaton is cident ‘We shal callin geocralchove nccs which te such dha ae at» tet abel by the ame MISPIRES and on the ote and ‘rey chien thee nes whee the ace abi ABUSES (ona are nr omnis of he name). HT, 6 "Aae {avemplisl [Now iit is especialy the fcr of performance that ping from the sent connate nor becsane Austin theo Gs ree of wuerance) hee agin, suggestive rejoins Freudian reaching? Lacan ins de Frid s-alexaiycois in posing tha vething hag 0 cdo with sxe abe» ile lieth bass andthe pinple ofthe ‘ey ides fin, Flare if) ileum be defi wha ix tal in vr buna ace Tha wy eee s0 aya mang Fedde pec ley th ana mange away ar do with co The ace manga ar evel precy he exalt ‘the iwhar people ae aay hing about (Le Spmpstne” pul ‘Ths, ike Austin, Lacan (fier Frew) repeats the Donjuaian scandal Ifthe problem of the Don Juan nyt sin fat the prob- [em of the elation ofthe erotic and the lings, the sandal es ‘ft a0 mach inthe fact that che ings lays exo but in ‘he much more scandalous face ha he ert alas linguistic: Tote wor he san es Jes in sex than ie Language, instr a lnguage is inhabited bythe act of filing trough which the body lacking isl the ac filing rough whic the bodys dong alvays also speak isl, whereas che eating never fis 10 dds chen as Lacan sy, langung, whatever it maybe, can ob- Keoladge and Plsare ~ secnity” (Vers un signifiant nouveau” p. a), tie nor so much be ‘cause the spec act aways connotes ee sexual ac, bu rather be- __ case the human sexual at always connozer the speech ct—the ac par esellence ofthe speaking body, which ubsiss ony insofar {itspeas, and which cannot kaow whether it onthe fre tha it ‘ris, i afell aly "hing oronly an “ves.” Dees not Don Junin 2 way raise the following troubling question; Whea the speaking body dor something makes love,” for example), what ser of ding” is involved? Does he aot suggest like Austin, ike eu, lke Lacan) that moss sandalous ofall proportion; The sexu ct in the speaking being, might be only a specch ace? "There is no seal elation,” sp¢ Lacan, speaking apheisialy ‘her elation with the Other only theough “the inermediny of thae which makes semen language.” And Austin i "Tomar inn some cs simpy wy ew won? (HT, pt Ana he aso manying ike 1 the ac of being ea rr a0) tobe decibel a ying eran word rater han ee fovming diferent, ined and stu eon UT. p “hata cmp) ‘Ths Auntn, lke Don Jun, revels the ete sandal of linguini philosophy —the incongruous interdependence ofthe fied oper ios of sand language Failure, be sure, pervadr every performance, including evn © thar of theory, which i cum bocomes erotic for Being nothing but ated act, oran act of Eling. Austin himself as we have Seen, _ ean ony fil in his own ac fl to hep his ons promi say the “constaive ofthe performative. Far from achieving the sisficion ofchcoretial “lc” che Ausinian performance site exponed ‘0 msi: "On this point 1 cule do more than expe x ow ‘hopeful feweeks” (17.148) ‘Now i usin finds hime indeed ashe say, impasioned, “xe “ed by inflcey (HT, p18, ear cat he ies to Blof to Knowledge and Plane oes well beyond the “happiness” of language or che “Fliciy” of the act. There exits. a fc, in Astin, something ikea plesare scandal x prfocmatve please if ever there wat one, which iin ‘ete in the act but snot necessily confused with it acheve ‘ments an insidious pleasure, whose sandal rhetoric aries the theoretical suspicion da every act may bes 2ct—noshing othe than the very event of sucha seandal, and the very advent of such pleasure. Beyond the Felicity Principle: ‘The Performance of Humor Inte cjes fame wh al nage dl pes heen doer ate i “Oo Oe Eanes of Lagi” Ale il ther inp do ng hey Joust warn tod md a foul pect bre” "Yong mes tat" il she ei dn ne ea eehing neo wld yon poston a “Dont el Ale noking sn ano are the wie cre Fn “foes ann the Jake me ky dt you kee oul “The lieve gel en yo en “eis Canal Th te eine ler ‘The ac of filing thus leads, paradxicly,e an exer of ue ance: manifest through its pleasure, independent of che “Teli” ‘offs search for knowledge, che Austinia ore of wterance”

    You might also like