Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Ana Lu
    15 views85 pages

    Original Title

    [FELMAN, Shoshana; CAVELL, Stanley; ButLER, Judith] the Scandal of Speaking Body

    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
    15 views85 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Ana Lu

    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

    You might also like