You are on page 1of 5

Working in the early 1990s on the book As a

Weasel Sucks Eggs: An Essay on Melancholy and


Cannibalism(published in English in 2008 by
Sternberg Press), we exchanged a few letters with
the late Jacques Derrida, who was then working
on what he referred to as the Òcannibalistic

01/05
tropesÓ in hermeneutics and German Idealism. He
was grateful for a little fragment by Novalis that
we had sent him:

All enjoyment, all taking in and


assimilation, is eating, or rather: eating is
nothing other than assimilation. All
spiritual pleasure can be expressed
through eating. In friendship, one really
Daniel Birnbaum and Anders eats of the friend, or feeds on him. It is a
Olsson genuine trope to substitute the body for the
spirit Ð and, at a commemorative dinner for
a friend, to enjoy, with bold, supersensual
An Interview imagination, his flesh in every bite, and his
blood in every gulp. This certainly seems
with Jacques barbaric to the taste of our time Ð but who
forces us to think of precisely the raw,
Derrida on the rotting flesh and blood? The physical
assimilation is mysterious enough to be a
beautiful image of the spiritual meaning Ð
Limits of and are blood and flesh really so loathsome
and ignoble? In truth, there is more here
Digestion than gold and diamonds, and the time is
soon at hand when we will have a higher
e-flux journal #2 Ñ january 2009 Ê Daniel Birnbaum and Anders Olsson

conception of the organic body.


An Interview with Jacques Derrida on the Limits of Digestion

Who knows how sublime a symbol blood is?


It is precisely that which is disgusting in the
organic components that points to
something very lofty in them. We recoil
from them, as if from ghosts, and sense
with childish terror a mysterious world in
this mix, perhaps an old acquaintance. But
to return to the commemorative dinner Ð
canÕt it be imagined that our friend has
turned into a being whose body has now
become bread, and whose blood has
become wine?1

The Novalis text was of relevance to him, he


claimed, and he had taken it as a point of
departure for several seminars. Derrida invited us
to see him in his home in the suburbs of Paris,
and the following interview, published here for the
first time in English, is the result of our lively
meeting.
Ð Daniel Birnbaum, Anders Olsson
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊDaniel Birnbaum, Anders Olsson: Your


lecture this year was entitled ÒThe Tropes of
Cannibalism.Ó Could you say a bit about the basic
ideas of the lecture?

09.16.12 / 15:30:50 EDT


ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊJacques Derrida: In Glas, my work on Hegel, negativity, however, is reflected: man does not in
I had already become interested in the figures of fact devour the object, but rather incorporates it
incorporation that are to be found in speculative abstractly, and thereby creates the inner space
thought Ð the very notion of comprehending as a that is the subject. It is a variation on the old
kind of incorporation. The concept of humanist song and dance.
ÒErinnerung,Ó which means both memory and ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊI have become increasingly interested in the

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

09.16.12 / 15:30:50 EDT


determined as Man, but Heidegger nonetheless theories of mourning and melancholy. And in my
provides a description of this place that excludes text ÒEconomimesis,Ó I have tried to show how a
animals. Only man has hands, says Heidegger, concept of economy acquired from digestion
and, through the hand, he has access to a world governs the view of the beautiful in Kantian
of meaningful action. The ape, however, aesthetics. While the beautiful is a name for the
possesses only ÒGreifsorganeÓ (organs for balanced and harmonious metabolism, the

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

gulp.Ó LŽvinasÕ deep originality, but also points out what


ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAnd one can encounter an equally is problematic in his humanism.]
astonishing and explicitly worded insight in ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊLŽvinas, more than anyone else, has
An Interview with Jacques Derrida on the Limits of Digestion

KleistÕs ÒPenthesilea,Ó where a cannibalistic emphasized the sovereign inaccessibility of the


desire can freely find expression. To love without other. The other can never be understood as
wanting to devour must surely be anorexic . . . presence, but only with concepts like traces and
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊDB, AO: What are you working on these exteriority. He has completely broken with the
days? phenomenological metaphysics of presence Ð
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊJD: I am currently focused on the ritual the other can never be understood in a
practices that express a cultureÕs view of food: theoretical act, but only by means of ethical
what one is allowed to eat, what one is not responsibility: I take responsibility for the other.
allowed to eat. The various views that different But this responsibility applies only to the other
cultures have on excrement Ð the scatological human being Ð LŽvinasÕ humanism is based on an
rites Ð belong to this complex as well, of course. I exclusion of the animal, just as in Heidegger. The
am currently working my way through a vast biblical commandment ÒThou shalt not killÓ
amount of anthropological material, and am applies to humans, but leaves out animals. Our
reading theoretical studies related to the culture rests on a structure of sacrifice. We are
perception of eating and defecation Ð Frazer, all mixed up in an eating of flesh Ð real or
Freud, Bataille, and others. symbolic. In the past, I have spoken about the
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIt is a study of more concrete cultural WestÕs phallic Òlogocentrism.Ó Now I would like to
phenomena than those I had worked on earlier. broaden this with the prefix carno- (flesh):
Previously, I documented in great detail the Òcarnophallogocentrism.Ó We are all Ð
tropes of incorporation in Hegelian discourse. I vegetarians as well Ð carnivores in the symbolic
did this, as I mentioned, in Glas. and it was also sense.
done by Werner Hamacher in Pleroma, with ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊDB, AO: How is this massive project on
which you are probably familiar. I have looked for eating related to deconstruction, as we have
similar figures in other philosophies and come to know it? If understanding can be
theoretical discourses as well. In my foreword to compared to a kind of eating, what would a
Maria Torok and Nicolas AbrahamÕs study on the deconstructionist reading of a text be?
Wolf Man, I analyzed ingestion in FreudÕs ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊJD: It would mean respect for that which

09.16.12 / 15:30:50 EDT


cannot be eaten Ð respect for that in a text which Daniel Birnbaum is Director of the StŠdelschule and
cannot be assimilated. My thoughts on the limits its Portikus gallery in Frankfurt and Director of the
Venice Biennale 2009. He is the author of several
of eating follow in their entirety the same books on art and philosophy.
schema as my theories on the indeterminate or Ê
untranslatable in a text. There is always a Anders Olsson is a Swedish writer, professor of
remainder that cannot be read, that must remain literature at Stockholm University, and member of the

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.

e-flux journal #2 Ñ january 2009 Ê Daniel Birnbaum and Anders Olsson


An Interview with Jacques Derrida on the Limits of Digestion

09.16.12 / 15:30:50 EDT


ÊÊÊÊÊÊ1
Novalis, Philosophical Writings,
ed. and tran. Margaret Mahony
Stoljar (Albany: State University
of New York Press, 1997), 102-
103.

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

09.16.12 / 15:30:51 EDT

You might also like