Professional Documents
Culture Documents
01/05
tropesÓ in hermeneutics and German Idealism. He
was grateful for a little fragment by Novalis that
we had sent him:
02/05
interiorization, plays a key role in HegelÕs philosophical border between man and animal,
philosophy. Spirit incorporates history by which also becomes an examination of the
assimilating, by remembering its own past. This traditional boundary between culture and nature.
assimilation acts as a kind of sublimated eating I have chosen to tackle this issue via the thinkers
Ð spirit eats everything that is external and who seem to have questioned the self-
foreign, and thereby transforms it into something sufficiency of humanism most deeply: Heidegger
internal, something that is its own. Everything and LŽvinas. Despite their critique of a
shall be incorporated into the great digestive traditional concept of the subject, they remain
system Ð nothing is inedible in HegelÕs infinite humanists by insisting on an absolute distinction
metabolism. between humans and animals. The
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe figures of incorporation in establishment of manÕs privileged position
hermeneutics and speculative philosophy are requires the sacrifice and devouring of animals.
what I call the Òtropes of cannibalism.Ó Nowhere Not even LŽvinas is willing to sacrifice the
is this clearer than in Hegel, but these tropes are sacrifice.
at work everywhere in Western thought. Eating ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊDB, AO: But in Heidegger, the interpretative
is, after all, the great mystery of Christianity, the act is surely not about interiorizing or
transubstantiation occurs in the act of incorporating, right?
incorporation itself: bread and wine become the ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ JD: No, not in any simple way, given that he
flesh and blood of Christ. But it is not simply dissolved the idea of a subjective interiority. But
GodÕs body that is incorporated via a mystical the difference itself between what is oneÕs own
eating Ð it is also his words. and what is foreign remains Ð understanding is
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊDB, AO: Do you think that interpretation of still an assimilation. Heidegger is not as
the Scriptures Ð biblical hermeneutics Ð is also a voracious a philosopher as Hegel; not everything
kind of sublimated eating? for him can be assimilated. What Heidegger calls
e-flux journal #2 Ñ january 2009 Ê Daniel Birnbaum and Anders Olsson
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊJD: Yes, by analogy with the assimilation of the Òontological differenceÓ between ÒbeingÓ
the body of Christ in the Holy Communion. It is (Sein) and ÒbeingsÓ (Seienden) Ð which is of
overarching figures and connections of this sort course the very essence of his philosophy Ð
An Interview with Jacques Derrida on the Limits of Digestion
that IÕm trying to map out. Eating GodÕs words indicates such a limit. Being always remains
constitutes a parallel to the Holy Sacrament Ð inaccessible. Being is never given as a being, a
here too, a divine transubstantiation takes place. thing in the world that can be named and
And that has left its mark on modern captured with the question What? Being
hermeneutics, which of course has its roots in transcends beings Ð it evades linguistic naming.
biblical interpretation: little wonder that ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊDB, AO: So you take HeideggerÕs ontological
GadamerÕs philosophy is so marked by terms difference to be the boundary between what can
taken from digestion, that he is such a be eaten and what cannot be eaten?
gluttonous thinker. His hermeneutics is, after all, ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊJD: Yes, exactly. The ontological difference
precisely about assimilating that which is is the boundary between what can be
foreign. What is radically alien in the other assimilated and what is already presupposed in
doesnÕt have a chance Ð it will be digested, all assimilation, but which itself is inaccessible.
melted down in the great tradition, wolfed down This is the most profound and most difficult to
mercilessly. comprehend movement in the Heideggerian
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBut I would like to point out that this concept of being. Being makes beings accessible
relationship between understanding and eating in the world, yet itself withdraws. This movement
is in no way specific to a given current in the is what Heidegger called das Ereignis Ð the event
thought of the West, but can more accurately be (or Òthe coming-aboutÓ).
regarded as a cultural a priori. ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBut as far as HeideggerÕs qualified
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊDB, AO: In what sense is this a cultural humanism is concerned, which transfers the
phenomenon? How different is manÕs way of specifically human from manÕs interior to his
eating from that of animals? hand, the boundary between human and animal
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊJD: Hegel draws a distinction between still remains something which is impossible to
manÕs relation to the world and animalsÕ relation call into question. It is not a traditional
to the world as two different forms of eating. humanism, but a determination of the location Ð
Animals have a negative relation to the object the place (Dasein) where meaning can be
because they simply swallow it. Human received. The location is not explicitly
03/05
grasping) and is therefore excluded from the closed economy remains threatened from within
realm of the human. This distinction between by disgust, and this analytic of the beautiful falls
hand and organ for grasping is not something apart when it reaches the point of disgust and
Heidegger arrived at by studying apes in the vomiting Ð a point at which the economy reaches
Black Forest, but rather has a purely stipulative its limit in terms of what is absolutely
character. Here, as always, humanism rests on inassimilable.
the sacrifice of the animal, on the implicit ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAs you can see, the actual interest in the
swallowing up of the animal. metaphor of digestion in speculative thought is
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊDB, AO: Does the symbolic eating always nothing new for me Ð it was twenty years ago
remain an invisible precondition of thought? Or that I wrote Glas. What IÕm doing now is
does this set of metaphors become apparent broadening the field of research from the
within the work of certain poets or artists? philosophical and speculative to the more
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊJD: Yes, of course. I recently saw Peter generally cultural.
GreenawayÕs film about the cook and the thief Ð ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ[Our conversation is interrupted when the
in this, I found a cannibalistic structure of phone rings. Derrida returns after a few minutes
sacrifice that I have seen elsewhere. It is a with a smile on his face. It was his friend
frightfully clear film. Also, my last three seminars Emmanuel LŽvinas.]
have been dedicated to a fragment of Novalis, in ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊItÕs always the same thing. He always thinks
whom one really can find everything. He links the I am going to hang up before the conversation is
sublime mystery of the Holy Communion to the over, and constantly interrupts with anxious
most base expression of a cannibalistic exclamations: hello, hello! He who talks about
incorporation of the friendÕs body. What matters faith in the other . . .
is Òto enjoy, with bold, supersensual imagination, ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ[Derrida now begins discussing his
his flesh in every bite, and his blood in every relationship with LŽvinas. He emphasizes
e-flux journal #2 Ñ january 2009 Ê Daniel Birnbaum and Anders Olsson
04/05
alien. This residue can never be interrogated as Swedish Academy that awards the Nobel Prize in
Literature. Olsson has written some fifteen books on
the same, but must be constantly sought out
poetry and the history of literature.
anew, and must continue to be written.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ×
This conversation took place on October 25, 1990. A portion
of the text was previously published in the Swedish
newspaper Expressen (February 15, 1991).
Translated from the Swedish by Brian Manning Delaney.
05/05
e-flux journal #2 Ñ january 2009 Ê Daniel Birnbaum and Anders Olsson
An Interview with Jacques Derrida on the Limits of Digestion